# Ciprofol injection in patients receiving non-invasive positive pressure ventilation: a retrospective study

## TL;DR

This study compares ciprofol and propofol for sedation during non-invasive ventilation, finding ciprofol safer and more tolerable with faster recovery.

## Contribution

The study introduces ciprofol as a preferable alternative to propofol for NPPV sedation due to its improved safety and tolerability.

## Key findings

- Ciprofol had significantly lower incidence of hypoxemia and hypotension compared to propofol.
- Ciprofol showed faster recovery times and reduced injection pain compared to propofol.
- Ciprofol demonstrated comparable sedation induction time but better tolerability during treatment.

## Abstract

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of ciprofol versus propofol in sedation for patients undergoing non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV), with a focus on evaluating sedative efficiency and systematically comparing the incidence of respiratory depression, circulatory depression, and adverse reactions.

A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 120 patients receiving NPPV at our hospital between June 2024 and October 2025. According to the sedative agent used, patients were divided into a Ciprofol group (Group C, n = 56) and a Propofol group (Group P, n = 64). The primary outcome was the sedation induction time, defined as the duration from drug administration to the first achievement of the target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score of −2 to 0. Secondary outcomes included the recovery time, extubation time, dynamic changes in respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) during treatment, as well as the incidence of adverse reactions such as hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90%), hypotension, and injection pain.

Regarding the primary outcome, the sedation induction time was comparable between the two groups, with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed that the Ciprofol group demonstrated several advantages: ① Enhanced Safety Profile: The incidences of hypoxemia and hypotension were significantly lower in the Ciprofol group (p < 0.05). ② Faster Recovery: Both emergence time and full recovery time were shorter in the Ciprofol group compared to the Propofol group (p < 0.05). ③ Improved Tolerability: The incidence of injection pain was markedly lower in the Ciprofol group (p < 0.001), and fluctuations in respiratory and circulatory parameters during treatment were also reduced.

For patients undergoing NPPV, ciprofol provides sedation efficacy comparable to propofol while demonstrating a superior safety profile, faster recovery, and enhanced injection tolerability. This combination of advantages makes ciprofol a preferable alternative for sedation in this clinical setting.