Scholarlink

Background <p>Propofol is a widely used agent for general anesthesia induction, with well-established anesthetic efficacy. However, its use is frequently associated with adverse reactions such as injection pain and circulatory depression. Fospropofol disodium, a water-soluble prodrug of propofol, has the potential to alleviate these issues. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the differences in efficacy and safety between fospropofol disodium and propofol for general anesthesia induction.</p> Methods <p>A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and SinoMed, covering studies up to July 2025. Additional searches were performed in Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fospropofol disodium and propofol for anesthesia induction were included. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.</p> Results <p>A total of nine RCTs were included. Compared to propofol, fospropofol disodium (≥ 20&#xa0;mg/kg) showed no significant difference in induction success rate (RR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01; <i>P</i> = 0.15; high-certainty), but was associated with a significantly longer anesthesia induction time (SMD = 2.76; 95% CI 2.11 to 3.41; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.00001; moderate-certainty). No significant difference was observed in recovery time (SMD = 0.19; 95% CI –&#xa0;0.27 to 0.64; <i>P</i> = 0.42; low-certainty). For hemodynamic change during induction, there were no significant differences in heart rate (MD = –&#xa0;1.54; 95% CI –3.15 to 0.07; <i>P</i> = 0.06; moderate-certainty) or mean arterial pressure (MD = –&#xa0;2.91; 95% CI –&#xa0;6.55 to 0.74; <i>P</i> = 0.12; moderate-certainty). Regarding adverse event indicators, fospropofol disodium significantly reduced the incidence of injection pain and bradycardia (RR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.29; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.00001; moderate- to high-certainty; RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; <i>P</i> = 0.0008). However, it was associated with significantly higher rates of pruritus and paresthesia compared to propofol (RR = 20.57; 95% CI 9.78 to 43.27; RR = 21.36; 95% CI 12.01 to 38.01; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.00001; high-certainty).</p> Conclusions <p>This meta-analysis suggests that high-dose fospropofol disodium achieves a comparable induction success rate to propofol and provides clear advantages in reducing injection pain and bradycardia. However, these benefits should be weighed against its delayed onset and the markedly higher rates of paresthesia and pruritus. Overall, fospropofol disodium may serve as a feasible alternative for selected patients. Given the limited current evidence, further high-quality RCTs are needed to clarify its indications and long-term safety profile.</p> <p><i>Research registration</i> This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251110352).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Efficacy and safety of fospropofol disodium versus propofol for general anesthesia induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月6日

查看全文
  • Yunpeng Xu,
  • Qian Liu,
  • Zi Yang,
  • Lei Zhu,
  • Xiaojing Jia,
  • Hong Guo,
  • Yang Jiao,
  • Kangtai Wang,
  • Jian Liu

摘要

Background

Propofol is a widely used agent for general anesthesia induction, with well-established anesthetic efficacy. However, its use is frequently associated with adverse reactions such as injection pain and circulatory depression. Fospropofol disodium, a water-soluble prodrug of propofol, has the potential to alleviate these issues. This study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the differences in efficacy and safety between fospropofol disodium and propofol for general anesthesia induction.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and SinoMed, covering studies up to July 2025. Additional searches were performed in Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fospropofol disodium and propofol for anesthesia induction were included. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

Results

A total of nine RCTs were included. Compared to propofol, fospropofol disodium (≥ 20 mg/kg) showed no significant difference in induction success rate (RR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01; P = 0.15; high-certainty), but was associated with a significantly longer anesthesia induction time (SMD = 2.76; 95% CI 2.11 to 3.41; P < 0.00001; moderate-certainty). No significant difference was observed in recovery time (SMD = 0.19; 95% CI – 0.27 to 0.64; P = 0.42; low-certainty). For hemodynamic change during induction, there were no significant differences in heart rate (MD = – 1.54; 95% CI –3.15 to 0.07; P = 0.06; moderate-certainty) or mean arterial pressure (MD = – 2.91; 95% CI – 6.55 to 0.74; P = 0.12; moderate-certainty). Regarding adverse event indicators, fospropofol disodium significantly reduced the incidence of injection pain and bradycardia (RR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.29; P < 0.00001; moderate- to high-certainty; RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.86; P = 0.0008). However, it was associated with significantly higher rates of pruritus and paresthesia compared to propofol (RR = 20.57; 95% CI 9.78 to 43.27; RR = 21.36; 95% CI 12.01 to 38.01; P < 0.00001; high-certainty).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that high-dose fospropofol disodium achieves a comparable induction success rate to propofol and provides clear advantages in reducing injection pain and bradycardia. However, these benefits should be weighed against its delayed onset and the markedly higher rates of paresthesia and pruritus. Overall, fospropofol disodium may serve as a feasible alternative for selected patients. Given the limited current evidence, further high-quality RCTs are needed to clarify its indications and long-term safety profile.

Research registration This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251110352).