Comparison of cardiovascular function and quality of recovery in isoflurane‐anaesthetised horses administered a constant rate infusion of lidocaine or lidocaine and medetomidine during elective surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: The effects of lidocaine combined with medetomidine or lidocaine alone on cardiovascular function during anaesthesia and their effects on recovery have not been thoroughly investigated in isoflurane-anaesthetised horses. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of an intraoperative i.v. constant rate infusion of lidocaine combined with medetomidine (Group 1) or lidocaine (Group 2) alone on cardiovascular function and on the quality of recovery in 12 isoflurane-anaesthetised horses undergoing arthroscopy. HYPOTHESIS: The combination would depress cardiovascular function but improve the quality of recovery when compared to lidocaine alone in isoflurane-anaesthetised horses. METHODS: Lidocaine (2 mg/kg bwt i.v. bolus followed by 50 microg/kg bwt/min i.v.) or lidocaine (same dose) and medetomidine (5 microg/kg bwt/h i.v.) was started 30 min after induction of anaesthesia. Lidocaine administration was discontinued 30 min before the end of surgery in both groups, whereas medetomidine administration was continued until the end of surgery. Cardiovascular function and quality of recovery were assessed. RESULTS: Horses in Group 1 had longer recoveries, which were of better quality due to better strength and overall attitude during the recovery phase than those in Group 2. Arterial blood pressure was significantly higher in Group 1 than in Group 2 and this effect was associated with medetomidine. No significant differences in cardiac output, arterial blood gases, electrolytes and acid-base status were detected between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: The combination of an intraoperative constant rate infusion of lidocaine and medetomidine did not adversely affect cardiovascular function in isoflurane-anaesthetised horses and improved the quality of recovery when compared to an intraoperative infusion of lidocaine alone.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".