A randomized trial of caudal block with bupivacaine 4 mg·kg<sup>−1</sup> (1.8 ml·kg<sup>−1</sup>) plus morphine (150 μg·kg<sup>−1</sup>) vs general anaesthesia with fentanyl for cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regional anaesthesia has been used effectively in paediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery and is thought to be safe. METHODS: Thirty patients ASA physical status II-III undergoing scheduled palliative or corrective cardiac surgery, receiving premedication with midazolam and anaesthetic induction with sevoflurane, fentanyl and pancuronium were randomly allocated to two groups. In group 1, patients received bupivacaine 0.22% 4 mg.kg-1 (1.8 ml.kg-1) and morphine 150 microg x kg-1 by the caudal route. After a 20-min period for the block to take effect, sevoflurane 0.5-1.0% and fentanyl 5 microg x kg-1 were administered for maintenance of anaesthesia. In group 2, the anaesthetic technique was the same as in group 1, without a caudal block and fentanyl 25 microg x kg-1 was administered at the moment of surgical incision. RESULTS: Cardiovascular and haemodynamic responses of patients receiving caudal block showed minor variations during the 20-min period between caudal and general anaesthesia. Fentanyl requirements during surgery were lower (P = 0.001) in patients with caudal block than patients with general anaesthesia. Extubation time was shorter (P = 0.034) in the caudal group. Two patients in the general anaesthesia group and one in the caudal group died because of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Caudal block with bupivacaine 0.22% 4 mg.kg-1 (1.8 ml.kg-1) and morphine 150 microg x kg-1 was safe and effective for paediatric patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, patients might have a better outcome with a reduction of morphine dosage and administration of a muscle relaxant of shorter duration of action than pancuronium.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".