Different sedation profiles with ciprofol compared to propofol represented by objective sedation level assessments by BIS and its acute hemodynamic impact in 3 escalated doses of ciprofol and propofol in healthy subjects: a single-center, open-label, randomized, 2-stage, 2-way crossover trial.

To compare the sedation profiles and the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety characteristics of ciprofol and propofol at 3 escalated dose levels in healthy Chinese male subjects.Eighteen subjects were planned to be enrolled into 3 dose groups in turn: group 1 (ciprofol-0.4 mg/kg vs. propofol-2.0 mg/kg), group 2 (ciprofol-0.6 mg/kg vs. propofol-3.0 mg/kg) and group 3 (ciprofol-0.8 mg/kg vs. propofol-4.0 mg/kg). They were randomly assigned into a ciprofol or propofol group in a ratio of 1:1, with sequences of ciprofol-propofol or propofol-ciprofol, separated with a washout period of at least 48 h.A total of 19 subjects were enrolled and 18 completed the trial. The median time to being fully alert after induction by ciprofol was longer than for propofol. The bispectral index (BIS) recovered significantly slower with ciprofol than with propofol 5 min and 10 min after reaching its lowest points. Systolic blood pressure (group 1: p=0.041; group 2: p=0.015; group 3: p=0.004) and mean arterial pressures (group 1: p=0.026; group 2: p=0.015; group 3: p=0.004) measured by the area under the curve below the baseline during the 2 min after induction were significantly less for ciprofol compared to propofol, but a significant change in diastolic blood pressure was only observed in group 3 (p=0.002). Eighteen (100.0%) subjects experienced 47 ciprofol-related treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and 17 (94.4%) subjects had 54 propofol-related TEAEs, which were mainly hypotension, involuntary movements, respiratory depression, and pain at the injection site with severity of grade 1 or 2.Ciprofol may be well tolerated at higher doses in the clinical practice and exhibited significantly different sedation profiles to propofol.