Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Ciprofol Sedation in ICU Patients with Mechanical Ventilation: A Clinical Trial Study Protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

From previous studies of pharmacodynamic data in mice, rats, beagle dogs and mini pigs, frequently in direct comparison to induction doses of propofol, ciprofol produced a rapid onset of anesthesia/sedation.

Methods

A phase 1 study suggested potential clinical advantages of ciprofol as a sedation/anesthetic agent, with no evidence of drug-related toxicity. However, the sedation effects and safety of ciprofol in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with mechanical ventilation should be further confirmed in a phase 3 study with a larger cohort of patients. During a phase 3, non-inferiority, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, propofol controlled trial, Chinese ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and requiring endotracheal intubation will be sedated for 6-24 h after randomization. Considering a success rate for ICU sedation of 99% for ciprofol and the positive control drug propofol, a total sample size of 120 subjects with mechanical ventilation will be required to achieve 80% power to determine non-inferiority with a margin of 8%. Finally, taking into account 10% losses, 135 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned to ciprofol (90 cases) and propofol (45 cases) groups in a 2:1 ratio. The primary outcome will be the success rate of sedation satisfied by the following conditions: the time within the range of Richmond Agitation and Sedation Score (+ 1 ~ - 2) must account for ≥ 70% of the study drug administration time and without other rescue treatments. Secondary outcomes will include the average time to reach the sedation goal, study drug usage, rescue medication given per unit weight, extubation time, recovery time to full consciousness and nursing scores. Safety endpoints will include adverse events (AEs), drug related AEs and serious AEs.

Planned outcomes

The results of this study will provide crucial information on the use of ciprofol for sedation of patients in ICUs.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04620031.

SUBMITTER: Liu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8478731 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of ciprofol for sedating patients in ICUs who required mechanical ventilation (MV).DesignA multicenter, single-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial.SettingTwenty-one centers across China from December 2020 to June 2021.PatientsA total of 135 ICU patients 18 to 80 years old with endotracheal intubation and undergoing MV, who were expected to require sedation for 6-24 hours.InterventionsOne hundred thirty-five ICU patients were randomly allocated into ciprofol ( n = 90) and propofol ( n = 45) groups in a 2:1 ratio. Ciprofol or propofol were IV infused at loading doses of 0.1 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg, respectively, over 4 minutes ± 30 seconds depending on the physical condition of each patient. Ciprofol or propofol were then immediately administered at an initial maintenance dose of 0.3 mg/kg/hr or 1.5 mg/kg/hr, to achieve the target sedation range of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (+1 to -2). Besides, continuous IV remifentanil analgesia was administered (loading dose: 0.5-1 μg/kg, maintenance dose: 0.02-0.15 μg/kg/min).Measurements and main resultsOf the 135 patients enrolled, 129 completed the study. The primary endpoint-sedation success rates of ciprofol and propofol groups were 97.7% versus 97.8% in the full analysis set (FAS) and were both 100% in per-protocol set (PPS). The noninferiority margin was set as 8% and confirmed with a lower limit of two-sided 95% CI for the inter-group difference of -5.98% and -4.32% in the FAS and PPS groups. Patients who received ciprofol had a longer recovery time ( p = 0.003), but there were no differences in the remaining secondary endpoints (all p > 0.05). The occurrence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or drug-related TEAEs were not significantly different between the groups (all p > 0.05).ConclusionsCiprofol was well tolerated, with a noninferior sedation profile to propofol in Chinese ICU patients undergoing MV for a period of 6-24 hours.

Project description:Background: Ciprofol (HSK3486) is a novel intravenous anesthetic agent that bears structural similarity to propofol and displays favorable pharmacodynamic characteristics such as rapid onset and offset. The meta-analysis aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in clinical practice. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2023. The primary outcome was success rate of sedation/anesthetic induction and differences in sedation/induction time. The secondary outcomes included risks of hemodynamic instability, respiratory complications, and pain on injection, as well as recovery profiles, satisfaction score, and top-up dose requirement. Results: Twelve RCTs (sedation: n = 6, anesthetic induction, n = 6, all conducted in China) involving 1,793 patients (age: 34-58 years) published from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Pooled results revealed no differences in success rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99 to 1.01, I2 = 0%, 1,106 patients, p = 1] and time required for successful anesthetic induction/sedation [mean difference (MD) = 7.95 s, 95% CI: -1.09 to 16.99, I2 = 97%, 1,594 patients, p = 0.08]. The risks of top-up dose requirement (RR = 0.94, p = 0.48), cardiopulmonary complications [i.e., bradycardia (RR = 0.94, p = 0.67), tachycardia (RR = 0.83, p = 0.68), hypertension (RR = 1.28, p = 0.2), hypoxemia/pulmonary depression (RR = 0.78, p = 0.24)], and postoperative nausea/vomiting (RR = 0.85, p = 0.72), as well as discharge time (MD = 1.39 min, p = 0.14) and satisfaction score (standardized MD = 0.23, p = 0.16) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the ciprofol group had lower risks of hypotension (RR = 0.85, p = 0.02) and pain on injection (RR = 0.17, p < 0.00001) than the propofol group. The time to full alertness was statistically shorter in the propofol group (i.e., 0.66 min), but without clinical significance. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated similar efficacy between ciprofol and propofol for sedation and anesthetic induction, while ciprofol was associated with lower risks of hypotension and pain on injection. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ciprofol in pediatric or the elderly populations. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/), identifier (CRD42023421278).

Project description:BackgroundThrough many years, the standard care has been to use continuous sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. However, preliminary randomised clinical trials indicate that it is beneficial to reduce the sedation level. No randomised trial has been conducted comparing sedation with no sedation, a priori powered to have all-cause mortality as primary outcome.The objective is to assess the benefits and harms of non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients.Methods/designThe non-sedation (NONSEDA) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical, parallel-group, multinational trial designed to include 700 patients from at least six ICUs in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.Inclusion criteria are mechanically ventilated patients with expected duration of mechanical ventilation >24 hours.Exclusion criteria are non-intubated patients, patients with severe head trauma, coma at admission or status epilepticus, patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia, patients with PaO2/FiO2?<?9 where sedation might be necessary to ensure sufficient oxygenation or place the patient in prone position.Experimental intervention is non-sedation supplemented with pain management during mechanical ventilation.Control intervention is sedation with a daily wake-up trial.The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes will be: days until death throughout the total observation period; coma- and delirium-free days; highest RIFLE score; days until discharge from the intensive care unit (within 28 days); days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation (within 28 days); and proportion of patients with a major cardiovascular outcome. Explorative outcomes will be: all cause mortality at 28 days after randomisation; days until discharge from the intensive care unit; days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation; days until discharge from the hospital; organ failure.Trial size: we will include 700 participants (2?×?350) in order to detect or reject 25% relative risk reduction in mortality with a type I error risk of 5% and a type II error risk of 20% (power at 80%).DiscussionThe trial investigates potential benefits of non-sedation. This might have large impact on the future treatment of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.Trial registerClinicalTrials.gov NCT0196768, 09.01.2014.

Project description:IntroductionPatients in the intensive care unit (ICU) frequently experience increased heart rate, blood pressure, and respiration rate as a product of anxiety and restlessness about their condition and treatments. Analgesia and sedation commonly involve benzodiazepines or opioids that lead to respiratory suppression and other adverse reactions. Remimazolam tosilate is a short-acting GABAA receptor agonist with reduced cardiovascular and respiratory inhibition compared to other commonly used benzodiazepines. Esketamine is a non-competitive N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor inhibitor that inhibits hyperalgesia and prolongs postoperative analgesia. It also reduces postoperative pain, delirium, and the use and acute tolerance of opioids. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of remimazolam tosilate combined with esketamine and sufentanil for sedation and analgesia in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.Methods and analysisThis prospective, single-arm, single-center, open-label clinical trial will be conducted from January 2022 to December 2023. The study will include 200 adult patients (≥ 18 years) from Shandong Provincial Hospital (affiliated with Shandong First Medical University) who are mechanically ventilated and admitted to the ICU between 24 and 72 h from the time of ventilation and who are administered analgesia and sedatives. Patients will undergo arterial blood gas analysis before administration. Remimazolam tosilate (0.2 mg/kg) will be injected intravenously within 30 s, followed by continuous infusion at a rate of 0.1 to 0.3 mg/kg/h via micropump. Esketamine (0.25 mg/kg) will be injected intravenously and maintained at 0.15 mg/kg/h, while sufentanil will be maintained at the rate of 0.1 to 0.2 μg/kg/h. The primary study outcome is the overall time required to maintain sedation. Secondary outcomes will include the total dosage used to reach the target sedation level, total mechanical ventilation time, awakening time, length of hospital stay, and incidence of cardiorespiratory-related adverse events and delirium. Adverse events (AEs) will be reported regardless of their relationship to the experimental drugs. AEs associated with adverse drug reactions will be classified as "affirmative correlation," "possible relevance," and "unable to determine." A paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test will be used to compare the changes of observed indexes before and after treatment. A P < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the local ethics committee at Shandong Provincial Hospital affiliatied to Shandong First Medical University. The results of this trial will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences.Trial registrationThe trial is registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100053106; date of registration: 2021-11-10.

Project description:ImportanceThere is limited evidence on the optimal strategy for liberating infants and children from invasive mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit.ObjectiveTo determine if a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention reduces the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.Design, setting, and participantsA pragmatic multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted that included 17 hospital sites (18 pediatric intensive care units) in the UK sequentially randomized from usual care to the protocol intervention. From February 2018 to October 2019, 8843 critically ill infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation were recruited. The last date of follow-up was November 11, 2019.InterventionsPediatric intensive care units provided usual care (n = 4155 infants and children) or a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention (n = 4688 infants and children) that consisted of assessment of sedation level, daily screening for readiness to undertake a spontaneous breathing trial, a spontaneous breathing trial to test ventilator liberation potential, and daily rounds to review sedation and readiness screening and set patient-relevant targets.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation from initiation of ventilation until the first successful extubation. The primary estimate of the treatment effect was a hazard ratio (with a 95% CI) adjusted for calendar time and cluster (hospital site) for infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.ResultsThere were a total of 8843 infants and children (median age, 8 months [interquartile range, 1 to 46 months]; 42% were female) who completed the trial. There was a significantly shorter median time to successful extubation for the protocol intervention compared with usual care (64.8 hours vs 66.2 hours, respectively; adjusted median difference, -6.1 hours [interquartile range, -8.2 to -5.3 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.20], P = .02). The serious adverse event of hypoxia occurred in 9 (0.2%) infants and children for the protocol intervention vs 11 (0.3%) for usual care; nonvascular device dislodgement occurred in 2 (0.04%) vs 7 (0.1%), respectively.Conclusions and relevanceAmong infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant reduction in time to first successful extubation. However, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16998143.

Project description:IntroductionOptimal ventilator management for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains uncertain. Lower tidal volume ventilation appears to be beneficial, but optimal management of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) remains unclear. The Esophageal Pressure-Guided Ventilation 2 Trial (EPVent2) aims to examine the impact of mechanical ventilation directed at maintaining a positive transpulmonary pressure (PTP) in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.Methods and analysisEPVent2 is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, phase II clinical trial testing the hypothesis that the use of a PTP-guided ventilation strategy will lead to improvement in composite outcomes of mortality and time off the ventilator at 28 days as compared with a high-PEEP control. This study will enrol 200 study participants from 11 hospitals across North America. The trial will utilise a primary composite end point that incorporates death and days off the ventilator at 28 days to test the primary hypothesis that adjusting ventilator pressure to achieve positive PTP values will result in improved mortality and ventilator-free days.Ethics and disseminationSafety oversight will be under the direction of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). Approval of the protocol was obtained from the DSMB prior to enrolling the first study participant. Approvals of the protocol as well as informed consent documents were also obtained from the Institutional Review Board of each participating institution prior to enrolling study participants at each respective site. The findings of this investigation, as well as associated ancillary studies, will be disseminated in the form of oral and abstract presentations at major national and international medical specialty meetings. The primary objective and other significant findings will also be presented in manuscript form. All final, published manuscripts resulting from this protocol will be submitted to PubMed Central in accordance with the National Institute of Health Public Access Policy.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01681225.

Project description:A relevant innovation about sedation of long-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients is the 'conscious target': patients should be awake even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral sedative administration is nowadays unusual, even though the gastrointestinal tract works soon after ICU admission. The enteral approach cannot produce deep sedation; however, it is as adequate as the intravenous one, if the target is to keep patients awake and adapted to the environment, and has fewer side effects and lower costs.A randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blind trial comparing enteral and intravenous sedative treatments has been done in 12 Italian ICUs. The main objective was to achieve and maintain the desired sedation level: observed RASS = target RASS ± 1. Three hundred high-risk patients were planned to be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous propofol/midazolam or enteral melatonin/hydroxyzine/lorazepam. Group assignment occurred through online minimization process, in order to balance variables potentially influencing the outcomes (age, sex, SAPS II, type of admission, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis) between groups. Once per shift, the staff recorded neurological monitoring using validated tools. Three flowcharts for pain, sedation, and delirium have been proposed; they have been designed to treat potentially correctable factors first, and, only once excluded, to administer neuroactive drugs. The study lasted from January 24 to December 31, 2012. A total of 348 patients have been randomized, through a centralized website, using a specific software expressly designed for this study. The created network of ICUs included a mix of both university and non-university hospitals, with different experience in managing enteral sedation. A dedicated free-access website was also created, in both Italian and English, for continuous education of ICU staff through CME courses.This 'educational research' project aims both to compare two sedative strategies and to highlight the need for a profound cultural change, improving outcomes by keeping critically-ill patients awake.Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT01360346.