Postoperative Recovery with Bispectral Index versus Anesthetic Concentration–guided Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of the bispectral index (BIS) monitor has been suggested to decrease excessive anesthetic drug administration, leading to improved recovery from general anesthesia. The purpose of this substudy of the B-Unaware and BAG-RECALL trials was to assess whether a BIS-based anesthetic protocol was superior to an end-tidal anesthetic concentration-based protocol in decreasing recovery time and postoperative complications. METHODS: Patients at high risk for awareness were randomized to either BIS-guided or end-tidal anesthetic concentration-guided general anesthesia in the original trials. Outcomes included time to postanesthesia care unit discharge readiness, time to achieve a postoperative Aldrete score of 9-10, intensive care unit length of stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and severe postoperative pain. Univariate Cox regression and chi-square tests were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: The BIS cohort was not superior in time to postanesthesia care unit discharge readiness (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1; n = 2,949), time to achieve an Aldrete score of 9-10 (hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.4; n = 706), intensive care unit length of stay (hazard ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9-1.1; n = 2,074), incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (absolute risk reduction, -0.5%; 95% CI, -5.8 to 4.8%; n = 789), or incidence of severe postoperative pain (absolute risk reduction, 4.4%; 95% CI, -2.3 to 11.1%; n = 759). CONCLUSIONS: In patients at high risk for awareness, the BIS-guided protocol is not superior to an anesthetic concentration-guided protocol in time needed for postoperative recovery or in the incidences of common postoperative complications.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".