MedTrace Logo

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

NCT07536750 · Status: RECRUITING · Type: OBSERVATIONAL · Enrollment: 1680

Last updated 2026-04-17

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

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 +1 for at least two consecutive hours without discontinuation of the sedation regimen or switching to another sedative. Respiratory depression will be defined based on predefined criteria including severe hypoxemia, markedly reduced respiratory rate, abnormal end-tidal carbon dioxide levels, or apnea.

Secondary outcomes include endotracheal intubation rate during the sedation period, ICU length of stay, ICU mortality, and the requirement for vasoactive agents. Propensity score matching and multivariable statistical models will be used to adjust for baseline differences and potential confounders between treatment groups.

This real-world study aims to provide evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and respiratory safety of ciprofol compared with propofol for sedation in ICU patients without invasive mechanical ventilation. The findings may help optimize sedation strategies in critically ill patients receiving non-invasive respiratory support and provide evidence to support future prospective clinical trials.

Conditions

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University

    lead OTHER

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2025-11-24
Primary Completion
2026-06-30
Completion
2026-06-30

Countries

  • China

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Entities

Diseases

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT07536750 on ClinicalTrials.gov