Evidence Hub

Respiratory-related safety profiles of ciprofol (cipepofol) for anesthesia/sedation in Chinese elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy: a multicenter, parallel controlled clinical trial (REST trial)

Xiang Zhang, Tao Zhu, Guo Chen, He Huang, Guang-You Duan, Zhaoyang Xiao, Jin-Xia Gao, Cun-Ming Liu et al.

Journal of clinical anesthesia, 2025

890 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

A post-marketing, parallel-controlled clinical trial (REST trial) was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cipepofol versus propofol for the induction of anesthesia/sedation in Chinese elderly patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

All enrolled patients aged ≥65 years were assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio to be administered intravenous cipepofol-0.3 mg/kg or propofol-1.5 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was incidence of respiratory-related adverse events (AEs) including respiratory depression (respiratory rate 30 s), apnea (loss of thoracic movement for >15 s) and hypoxemia (SpO2 15 s). Secondary endpoints included: success rates of the gastroscopy procedure and gastroscope insertion; gastroscopy-related duration (successful anesthesia/sedation induction duration; time to full alertness; time to leaving the post-anesthesia care unit; gastroscope insertion duration); satisfaction rate for the anesthesia/sedation process and anesthetics.

RESULTS

Among 890 randomized patients, 871 were finally included in the full analysis set (FAS), with 431 receiving cipepofol and 440 receiving propofol. Patients treated with cipepofol had a significantly lower incidence of respiratory-related AEs compared to propofol treatment (FAS: 22.3 % vs. 33.9 %, per-protocol set: 20.6 % vs. 34.5 %, all P < 0.001), regardless of sex. Multivariable analysis revealed that the risk of patients experiencing respiratory-related AEs was 1.82 times higher in the propofol group compared to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 890 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free