A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Anticatabolic Effect of Epidural Analgesia and Hypocaloric Glucose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The goal of the present study was to investigate whether epidural analgesia exerts a protein-sparing effect after colorectal surgery in the presence of hypocaloric glucose supply initiated with surgical skin incision. METHODS: We randomly allocated 10 patients to receive general anesthesia combined with epidural anesthesia with bupivacaine, followed by epidural analgesia using bupivacaine/fentanyl, and 10 patients to receive general anesthesia, followed by patient-controlled analgesia with intravenous morphine. All patients received a 48-hour infusion of glucose 10% from surgical skin incision until the second day after surgery. The glucose infusion rate provided 50% of the patient's resting energy expenditure. Kinetics of protein and glucose metabolism were assessed by a stable-isotope tracer technique (L-[1-(13)C]leucine and [6,6-(2)H(2)]glucose). RESULTS: The rate of appearance of leucine increased in the intravenous-analgesia group (112 +/- 29 to 130 +/- 25 micromol/kg/h) 2 days after surgery, and this increase was more pronounced than in the epidural analgesia group (preoperative 120 +/- 24, postoperative 123 +/- 22 micromol/kg/h, P < .05). Leucine oxidation rate increased in the intravenous analgesia group from 17 +/- 8 to 23 +/- 8 micromol/kg/h and in the epidural group from 17 +/- 6 to 19 +/- 7 micromol/kg/h without the difference between the groups reaching statistical significance (P = .067). Nonoxidative leucine disposal remained unaltered in both groups. No differences in glucose metabolism were seen between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia inhibits the increase in whole-body protein breakdown in patients receiving perioperative hypocaloric glucose infusion initiated with surgical skin incision. However, oxidative protein loss, protein synthesis, and glucose metabolism are not affected by epidural analgesia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".