Sedation and Analgesia in Adult Patients: Evaluation of a Staged-Dose System Based on Body Weight for Use in Abdominal Interventional Radiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a systematic protocol for sedation and analgesia in interventional radiology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-one adult patients underwent 113 abdominal interventional procedures. Fentanyl citrate and midazolam hydrochloride were administered in one to five steps (A, B, C, D, E) until the patient was drowsy and tranquil at the effective loading dose (ELD). Doses per step were as follows: A, fentanyl 1 microg per kilogram of body weight; B, midazolam 0.010-0.035 mg/kg; C, repeat dose in A; D, repeat half the dose in B; and E, midazolam 1-2-mg boluses (maximum, 0.15 mg/kg). RESULTS: The ELD was reached in no procedure after step A, in 70 after B, in 23 after C, and in 18 after D. Step E was needed in two procedures. The mean maximum pain score (scale of 0 to 10) was 3.4; pain scores in 85 (75%) procedures were 4 or less (discomforting). Severe pain occurred in seven (6%) procedures. Hypoxia (oxygen saturation < 90%) occurred in 11 (22%) procedures performed in patients breathing room air and four (6%) performed in those breathing supplemental oxygen (P: =.04). All patients responded to supplemental oxygen. CONCLUSION: This stepwise "ABCDE protocol" allows safe and effective sedation of patients. It is easy to use and may be useful in training radiology residents, staff, and nurses in the techniques of sedation and analgesia. Supplemental oxygen should be used routinely.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| 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".