Volatile-Based Short-Term Sedation in Cardiac Surgical Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differences in extubation times in a group of cardiac surgical patients who were anesthetized and sedated with either IV propofol or inhaled volatile anesthetic agents. DESIGN: This was a prospective randomized controlled trial performed between September 2009 and August 2011. SETTING: Cardiovascular ICU within a tertiary referral university-affiliated teaching hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred forty-one patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery with normal or mildly reduced left ventricular systolic function. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive anesthesia and postoperative sedation using IV propofol (n = 74) or inhaled volatile (isoflurane or sevoflurane) anesthetic agent (n = 67). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients sedated using inhaled volatile agent displayed faster readiness to extubation time at 135 minutes (95-200 min) compared with those receiving IV propofol at 215 minutes (150-280 min) (p < 0.001). Extubation times were faster within the volatile group at 182 minutes (140-255 min) in comparison with propofol group at 291 minutes (210-420 min) (p < 0.001). The volatile group showed a higher prevalence of vasodilatation with hypotension and higher cardiac outputs necessitating greater use of vasoconstrictors. There was no difference in postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, sedation score, ICU or hospital length of stay, or patient mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Inhaled volatile anesthesia and sedation facilitates faster extubation times in comparison with IV propofol for patient undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".