Recruiting

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Versus Propofol for Sedation in ICU Patients Undergoing Non-Invasive Ventilation

ClinicalTrials.gov IDNCT07536750

PhaseNot Applicable

Enrollment1680

SponsorNanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University

Age18 Years

SexALL

I'm interested View official listing

Conditions studied

Respiratory Failure, Critical Illness

About this study

Sedation is frequently required in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), including those receiving non-invasive respiratory support such as high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), non-invasive ventilation (NIV), or conventional oxygen therapy. Anxiety, agitation, dyspnea, and poor tolerance of respiratory support may compromise treatment adherence and increase the risk of respiratory deterioration and endotracheal intubation. Appropriate sedation may improve patient comfort, facilitate respiratory support, and reduce complications. However, sedation in non-mechanically ventilated ICU patients remains challenging because excessive sedation may lead to respiratory depression or hemodynamic instability. Propofol is commonly used for ICU sedation because of its rapid onset and controllable depth of sedation. Nevertheless, propofol is associated with several adverse effects, including respiratory depression, hypotension, and injection pain, which may limit its use in patients without invasive mechanical ventilation. Ciprofol is a novel short-acting intravenous sedative that acts as a gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA-A) receptor agonist and is structurally related to propofol. Previous studies have demonstrated that ciprofol has rapid onset, predictable sedation, less injection pain, and a potentially lower incidence of respiratory depression and hemodynamic instability compared with propofol. Clinical studies have shown favorable safety and efficacy profiles of ciprofol in procedural sedation, anesthesia induction, and sedation in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. However, evidence regarding its use in ICU patients receiving non-mechanical ventilation is still limited. This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol versus propofol for sedation in adult ICU patients who are not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. The study will be conducted as a multicenter retrospective cohort study involving approximately 30 tertiary hospitals in China. Adult ICU patients treated between January 1, 2022 and July 30, 2024 who received intravenous sedation with either ciprofol or propofol while receiving non-invasive respiratory support (including NIV, HFNC, or conventional oxygen therapy) will be included. The primary outcomes are sedation success rate and the incidence of respiratory depression. Sedation success is defined as maintaining the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) within the target range of -2 to…

Primary outcomes

Sedation Success Rate (From initiation of sedation up to 72 hours during ICU stay.)
Incidence of Respiratory Depression (From initiation of sedation up to 72 hours during ICU stay.)

Eligibility information

Inclusion Criteria Age: * Age ≥18 years * Admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between January 1, 2022 and July 30, 2024 * Received intravenous sedation with either ciprofol or propofol during ICU stay * Total duration of ciprofol or propofol administration ≥2 hours * Sedation initiated while the patient was not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation * Receiving non-invasive respiratory support or oxygen therapy at the time sedation was started, including noninvasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), nasal cannula, or face mask oxygen therapy * Availability of complete electronic medical records including sedation assessment using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) * Availability of continuous vital sign monitoring records including respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, and heart rate Exclusion Criteria: * Age \<18 years * Pregnancy or breastfeeding * Use of other primary sedative agents during the observation period, including midazolam or dexmedetomidine * Total exposure time to ciprofol or propofol \<2 hours * Known allergy or hypersensitivity to ciprofol, propofol, or their formulation components * Initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation before sedation * Missing key clinical data required for outcome evaluation, including sedation score, vital signs, or drug administration records * Participation in other interventional clinical trials that may interfere with outcome assessment * Severe visual or hearing impairment preventing accurate sedation assessment * Coma or conditions that prevent reliable evaluation using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) * Any condition that the investigators consider inappropriate for inclusion in the study

Study locations

Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510515 China

Before you participate: Varda Clinical is an independent discovery tool, not the study sponsor or a medical provider. Eligibility can only be determined by the official study team. Discuss potential risks and benefits with a qualified healthcare professional.

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov. Record last refreshed by Varda Clinical: 2026-09-27.