The effect of remifentanil on cerebral blood flow velocity in children anesthetized with propofol<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cerebrovascular stability and rapid anesthetic emergence are desirable features of a neuroanesthetic regimen. In this randomized crossover study the effect of a low-dose remifentanil infusion on cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) in children anesthetized with propofol was evaluated. METHODS: Twenty healthy children aged 1-6 years undergoing urological surgery were enrolled. Following face mask induction with sevoflurane, anesthesia was maintained with a standardized propofol infusion. Rocuronium was used to facilitate tracheal intubation and normothermia, and normocapnia were maintained. All children received a caudal epidural block, and a transcranial Doppler probe was placed to measure middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity (Vmca). Each patient received a remifentanil regimen of 0.5 microg x kg(-1) followed by 0.2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) in a predetermined order of remifentanil + propofol or propofol alone. Vmca, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded simultaneously at equilibrium with and without remifentanil. RESULTS: The combination of remifentanil and propofol caused an 8.1% decrease in MAP (P = 0.0005) and an 11.8% decrease in HR (P < 0.0001) compared with propofol alone. Vmca was not different between the two groups (P = 0.4041). CONCLUSION: The addition of remifentanil to propofol anesthesia in children causes a reduction in MAP and HR without affecting CBFV. This may imply that cerebral blood pressure autoregulation is preserved in children under propofol and remifentanil anesthesia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".