Asploro Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Case Reports

Asploro Journal of Biomedical and Clinical Case Reports

Tang-yuan-meng Zhao^1*
1West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China

Corresponding Author: Tang-yuan-meng Zhao
Address: West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, Sichuan, China.
Received date: 21 May 2024; Accepted date: 17 June 2024; Published date: 24 June 2024

Citation: Zhao T. Comparison of the Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting between Ciprofol and Propofol in Patients Undergoing Painless Gastroscopy. Asp Biomed Clin Case Rep. 2024 Jun 24;7(2):151-57.

Copyright © 2024 Zhao T. This is an open-access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited.

Keywords: Ciprofol, Propofol, Anaesthesia Sedation, Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting, Gastroscopy, Antiemetic Effect

Abstract

Background: Ciprofol is a new anaesthetic sedative drug independently developed in China, and its chemical structure is derived from the classical sedative drug Propofol. The aim of this trial was to compare the incidence of anaesthetic PONV in patients undergoing painless gastroscopy with that of Propofol, and to analyze and evaluate the antiemetic effect, one of the non-sedative effects of cyclobenzaprine, in comparison with that of Propofol.
Methods: In this trial, 112 patients undergoing elective painless gastroscopy were included and divided into two groups: Group C for Ciprofol (0.4 mg/kg of Ciprofol) and Group P for Propofol (1.5 mg/kg of Propofol). The patients were also given 7 μg/kg alfentanil. At the end of the examination and after complete awakening, the patients were discharged after observing no special conditions. The assistant physician made a telephone follow-up after 24 hours. The PONV impact scale was used as a reference, and the patients were asked whether they had developed PONV. A chi-square test was used to count the occurrence of PONV in Group C and Group P and to compare the incidence rates of the two. Statistical significance was defined by a Pearson’s chi-squared P value < 0.05.
Results: The incidence of PONV in Ciprofol (Group C) was 26%; the incidence of PONV in Propofol (Group P) was 11.3%. The Pearson’s chi-square test results of Group C and Group P = 0.042, indicating that both Ciprofol and Propofol could prevent the occurrence of PONV.
Conclusion: Both Ciprofol and Propofol can prevent PONV when used for anaesthesia in patients undergoing painless gastroscopy, with Propofol’s antiemetic effect being superior to that of Ciprofol. Propofol has a better antiemetic effect than Ciprofol, and both can be safely used for anaesthesia in patients undergoing gastroscopy.