A randomized trial compared ciprofol with propofol after cardiac surgery. Midazolam was available in both groups as supplemental sedation.
The single-center trial randomized 123 patients after coronary bypass or valve surgery to ciprofol or propofol. Both groups could receive midazolam when additional sedation was needed, and remifentanil was used for analgesia. The main outcome was the percentage of sedation assessments in the target range during the first 24 hours. This endpoint describes how often the protocol achieved the intended sedation level; it does not measure the isolated effect of each drug given under that protocol.
In the per-protocol analysis, sedation compliance was 92.77% with ciprofol and 94.30% with propofol. The results met the prespecified noninferiority margin of eight percentage points. One ciprofol patient and two propofol patients received supplemental midazolam. With only three rescue recipients, the study offers little basis for comparing midazolam requirements precisely. Hypotension was numerically less frequent with ciprofol, but the difference was not statistically significant.
The randomized comparison applies to the assigned sedation strategies, with rescue treatment available in both. It does not compare either drug directly with midazolam or establish that one strategy prevents hypotension. The single-center postoperative setting also limits generalization. When reviewing an individual record, identify the reason, timing, and dose of each rescue administration alongside the infusion and analgesic timeline. A protocol permitting midazolam does not establish that a particular patient actually received it.
Original analysis of the supplied journal article, identified as PMC12911956.