MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965598494 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181b02eff

Use of intravenous infusion sedation among mechanically ventilated patients in the United States*

2009· article· en· W1965598494 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropofolDexmedetomidineSedationMidazolamAnesthesiaMechanical ventilationHydromorphoneFentanylSedativeIntensive careLoading doseLorazepamIntensive care unitConfidence intervalIntensive care medicineOpioidInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Many studies compare the efficacy of different forms of intravenous infusion sedation for critically ill patients, but little is known about the actual use of these medications. We sought to describe current use of intravenous infusion sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in U.S. intensive care units. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of intravenous infusion sedation among mechanically ventilated patients. Intravenous sedatives examined included benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam), propofol, and dexmedetomidine. Use was defined as having received an intravenous infusion for any time period during the stay in intensive care. SETTING: One hundred seventy-four intensive care units contributing data to Project IMPACT from 2001 through 2007. PATIENTS: All patients who received mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 109,671 mechanically ventilated patients, 56,443 (51.5%, 95% confidence interval 51.2-51.8) received one or more intravenous infusion sedatives. Sedative use increased over time, from 39.7% (38.7-40.6) of patients in 2001 to 66.7% (65.7-67.7) in 2007 (p < .001). Most patients who received intravenous infusion sedation received propofol (82.2%, 81.9-82.5) vs. benzodiazepines (31.1%, 30.7-31.5) or dexmedetomidine (4.0%, 3.8-4.2). Of the patients, 66.2% (65.8-66.6) received only propofol, and 16.2% (15.9-16.5) only benzodiazepines. Among patients mechanically ventilated >96 hrs, propofol infusions were more common. Intravenous infusion narcotics (fentanyl, morphine, or hydromorphone) were used more frequently among patients who received benzodiazepines (70.1%, 69.1-71.0) compared with propofol (23.9%, 23.5-24.3), p < .001. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of mechanically ventilated patients receiving intravenous infusion sedation has increased over time. Sedation with an infusion of propofol was much more common than with benzodiazepines or dexmedetomidine, even for patients mechanically ventilated beyond 96 hrs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it