Intramuscular Administration of Lidocaine or Bupivacaine Alters the Effect of Midazolam from Sedation to Hypnosis in a Dose-Dependent Manner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the sedative/hypnotic interaction between the administration of intravenous (i.v.) midazolam and intramuscular (i.m.) lidocaine or bupivacaine. Women undergoing gynecological surgery (n = 150) were randomly assigned to 15 dose groups of 10 patients each. Fifty patients received one of five predetermined doses of midazolam for the calculation of its median effective dose (ED50). The remaining patients (n = 100) received i.v. midazolam 0.1 mg/kg following an i.m. injection of either bupivacaine, lidocaine, or saline (control). Three minutes after the i.v. dose, the loss of response to verbal command was evaluated. The ED50 of midazolam was 0.226 mg/kg (95% confidence interval [CI] 18-027; p = 0.03). Both bupivacaine and lidocaine enhanced the effect of midazolam in a dose-dependent fashion. The hypnotic ED50 for bupivacaine and lidocaine was 0.7 mg/kg (95% CI 0.5-1.0) and 3.32 mg/kg (95% CI 2.2-11.7), respectively. The slopes of the dose-response curves were significantly different (p < 0.01). Local anesthetics that are well within the range of clinical use for regional blocks or local infiltration can bring the effect of midazolam from the sedative into the hypnotic range.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".