The Anabolic Effect of Epidural Blockade Requires Energy and Substrate Supply
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors examined the hypothesis that continuous thoracic epidural blockade with local anesthetic and opioid, in contrast to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with morphine, stimulates postoperative whole body protein synthesis during combined provision of energy (4 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1) glucose) and amino acids (0.02 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1) Travasol 10%, equivalent to approximately 2.9 g x kg(-1) x day(-1)). METHODS: Sixteen patients were randomly assigned to undergo a 6-h stable isotope infusion study (3 h fasted, 3 h feeding) on the second day after colorectal surgery performed with or without perioperative epidural blockade. Protein synthesis, breakdown and oxidation, glucose production, and clearance were measured by L-[1-(13)C]leucine and [6,6-(2)H(2) ]glucose. RESULTS: Epidural blockade did not affect protein and glucose metabolism in the fasted state. Parenteral alimentation decreased endogenous protein breakdown and glucose production to the same extent in both groups. Administration of glucose and amino acids was associated with an increase in whole body protein synthesis that was modified by the type of analgesia, i.e., protein synthesis increased by 13% in the epidural group (from 93.3 +/- 16.6 to 104.5 +/- 11.1 micromol x kg(-1) x h(-1) ) and by 4% in the patient-controlled analgesia group (from 90.0 +/- 27.1 to 92.9 +/- 14.8 micromol x kg(-1) x h(-1);P = 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural blockade accentuates the stimulating effect of parenteral alimentation on whole body protein synthesis.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".