Protective effects of combined treatment with ciprofol and mild therapeutic hypothermia during cerebral ischemia-reperfusion injury

Despite improvement in cardiopulmonary resuscitation(CPR)performance,cardiac arrest(CA)is still associated with poor prognosis.The high mortality rate is due to multi-organ dysfunction caused by cerebral ischemia and reperfusion injury(I/R).The guidelines for CPR suggest the use of therapeutic hypothermia(TH)as an effective treatment to decrease mortality and the only approach confirmed to reduce I/R injury.During TH,sedative agents(propofol)and analgesia agents(fentanyl)are commonly used to prevent shiver and pain.However,propofol has been associated with a number of serious adverse effects such as metabolic acidosis,cardiac asystole,myocardial failure,and death.In addition,mild TH alters the pharmacokinetics of agents(propofol and fentanyl)and reduces their systemic clearance.For CA patients undergoing TH,propofol can be overdosed,leading to delayed awakening,prolonged mechanical ventilation,and other subsequent complications.Ciprofol(HSK3486)is a novel anesthetic agent that is convenient and easy to administer intravenously outside the operating room.Ciprofol is rapidly metabolized and accumulates at low concentrations after continuous infusion in a stable circulatory system compared to propofol.Therefore,we hypothesized that treatment with HSK3486 and mild TH after CA could protect the brain and other organs.

Safety and efficacy of ciprofol vs.propofol for sedation in intensive care unit patients with mechanical ventilation:a multi-center,open label,randomized,phase 2 trial

Background:Ciprofol(HSK3486;Haisco Pharmaceutical Group Co.,Ltd.,Chengdu,China),developed as a novel 2,6-disubstituted phenol derivative showed similar tolerability and efficacy characteristics as propofol when applicated as continuous intravenous infusion for 12 h maintenance sedation in a previous phase 1 trial.The phase 2 trial was designed to investigate the safety,efficacy,and pharmacokinetic characteristics of ciprofol for sedation of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.Methods:In this multicenter,open label,randomized,propofol positive-controlled,phase 2 trial,39 Chinese intensive care unit patients receiving mechanical ventilation were enrolled and randomly assigned to a ciprofol or propofol group in a 2:1 ratio.The ciprofol infusion was started with a loading infusion of 0.1-0.2 mg/kg for 0.5-5.0 min,followed by an initial maintenance infusion rate of 0.30 mg·kg^(-1)·h^(-1),which could be adjusted to an infusion rate of 0.06 to 0.80 mg·kg^(-1)·h^(-1),whereas for propofol the loading infusion dose was 0.5-1.0 mg/kg for 0.5-5.0 min,followed by an initial maintenance infusion rate of 1.50 mg·kg^(-1)·h^(-1),which could be adjusted to 0.30-4.00 mg·kg^(-1)·h^(-1)to achieve-2 to+1 Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale sedation within 6-24 h of drug administration.Results:Of the 39 enrolled patients,36 completed the trial.The median(min,max)of the average time to sedation compliance values for ciprofol and propofol were 60.0(52.6,60.0)min and 60.0(55.2,60.0)min,with median difference of 0.00(95%confidence interval:0.00,0.00).In total,29(74.4%)patients comprising 18(69.2%)in the ciprofol and 11(84.6%)in the propofol group experienced 86 treatment emergent adverse events(TEAEs),the majority being of severity grade 1 or 2.Drug-and sedation-related TEAEs were hypotension(7.7%vs.23.1%,P=0.310)and sinus bradycardia(3.8%vs.7.7%,P=1.000)in the ciprofol and propofol groups,respectively.The plasma concentration-time curves for ciprofol and propofol were similar.Conclusions:ciprofol is comparable to propofol with good tolerance and efficacy for sedation of Chinese intensive care unit patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the present study setting.Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT04147416.