Article
ZHU Feng, DENG Yijiang, ZHOU Zaiyin, ZHONG Yue
Objective: To compare the differences in clinical pharmacodynamic characteristics between Ciprofol and Propofol. Method: From July to October 2021, 80 patients underwent internal fixation of distal upper limb fractures in the Affiliated Hospital of Panzhihua University were randomly divided into Ciprofol group and Propofol group, 40 cases in each group. After the completion of ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block, two groups were intravenously pumped with 2 mg/kg Propofol and 0.4 mg/kg Ciprofol for 1 min. The mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and bispectral index (BIS) were recorded and compared between two groups before administration (T0) and 1 min (T1), 2 min (T2), 3 min (T3), 4 min (T4), 5 min (T5) after the start of pumping drugs; the induction time, consciousness recovery time and orientation recovery time of two groups were observed; in addition, the injection pain score and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Result: There were significant differences in MAP, HR, SpO2 and BIS at different time points between two groups (P<0.05); MAP and SpO2 at T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 in Propofol group were lower than those at T0, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); MAP at T1 and T2 in Ciprofol group were lower than those at T0, and SpO2 at T1, T2, T3, T4 were lower than those at T0, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); MAP and SpO2 at T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 of Ciprofol group were higher than those of Propofol group, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); HR at T1 and T2 of two groups were higher than those at T0, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); HR at T1 and T2 of Ciprofol group were lower than those of Propofol group, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05); BIS at T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 of two groups were lower than those at T0, the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). The induction time, consciousness recovery time and orientation recovery time of Ciprofol group were significantly shorter than those of Propofol group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05 ). The visual analogue scale (VAS) score and incidence of hypotension and hypoxemia in Ciprofol group were lower than those in Propofol group, and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion: The anesthetic efficacy of 0.4mg/kg Ciprofol was equivalent to