ICU sedation, delirium & recovery
Efficacy and safety of sedation induced with cipepofol alone versus a dexmedetomidine plus propofol regimen for patients requiring mechanical ventilation: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial
Authors' conclusion
Cipepofol was not inferior to dexmedetomidine/propofol for >24-h sedation in Chinese adult patients receiving MV in the ICU. Furthermore, cipepofol elicited fewer hypotensive events than dexmedetomidine/propofol.
Study context
- Population
- Chinese adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV)71 in FAS/PPS
- Participants
- 72 patients
- Comparison
- Cipepofol alone vs dexmedetomidine plus propofol for sedation
- Primary endpoint
- Sedation success rate (non-inferiority margin 10%)
Methodological detailsopen-label, non-inferiority, single-centre
- Open-label
- Non-inferiority
- Single-centre
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Sedation success rate
Lower limit of 95% CI −1.34% (ITT); −9.64% (FAS/PPS); non-inferiority established
Further findings
Sedation compliance rate, extubation and recovery times, MV duration, ICU LOS
- No differences between groups
- all P > 0.05
Safety
Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs)
Drug-related TEAEs
Hypotension
P = 0.017
- Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs): all P < 0.05
- Drug-related TEAEs: all P < 0.05
Original publication
Efficacy and safety of sedation induced with cipepofol alone versus a dexmedetomidine plus propofol regimen for patients requiring mechanical ventilation: a randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Ann Intensive Care. Published 1 September 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →