Relationship between age and spontaneous ventilation during intravenous anesthesia in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Maintaining spontaneous ventilation in children, using total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), is often desirable, particularly for airway endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of age on the dose of remifentanil tolerated during spontaneous ventilation under anesthesia maintained with infusions of propofol and remifentanil and to provide guidelines for the administration of remifentanil and propofol to maintain spontaneous ventilation in children. METHODS: Forty-five children scheduled for strabismus surgery were divided by age into three groups (group I: 6 months-3 years, group II: 3 years-6 years, and group III: 6 years-9 years). The propofol infusion was titrated using State Entropy as a pharmacodynamic endpoint and remifentanil infused, using a modified up-and-down method, with respiratory rate depression as a pharmacodynamic endpoint. A respiratory rate of just greater than 10, stable for 10 min, determined the final remifentanil infusion rate. The group mean was estimated from the final remifentanil infusion rate tolerated (RD(50)). RESULTS: The RD(50) of groups I, II, and III were 0.192 (0.08), 0.095 (0.04), and 0.075 (0.03) microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) respectively. Pair-wise comparisons between the groups for the rate of remifentanil tolerated revealed a statistically significant increase in the RD(50) in children less than 3 years of age compared with older children in groups II and III (P < 0.001). The relationship between remifentanil dose and age, weight or height was not linear. CONCLUSIONS: Younger children, especially those aged less than 3 years, tolerate a higher dose of remifentanil while still maintaining spontaneous respiration. TIVA with spontaneous ventilation is readily achieved in younger children and infants.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".