MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient-Controlled Sedation Using Propofol for Dressing Changes in Burn Patients: A Dose-Finding Study

2003· article· en· W2067384032 on OpenAlexaff
Claudia Coimbra, Manon Choini re, Thomas M. Hemmerling

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropofolAnesthesiaSedationBispectral indexBolus (digestion)Heart rateAnxietyBlood pressureSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first change of dressings after skin grafting in burn patients is a source of great anxiety because of pain anticipation and the immediate and first confrontation with the result of skin grafting. We designed this dose-finding study to determine the feasibility and safety of patient-controlled sedation (PCS) using propofol during these procedures. Twenty patients were familiarized with the PCS and asked to use PCS whenever they felt uncomfortable or anxious. Analgesia was provided by a single bolus of morphine IV 15 min before the procedure according to their daily intake. The first 10 patients used a fixed bolus of propofol 0.3 mg/kg and a lockout of 5 min. The degree of sedation was measured using bispectral index (BIS) monitoring. Demands versus delivery of propofol boluses were recorded. Within 1 h after the procedure, pain intensity was evaluated and satisfaction scores obtained from patients and nurses performing the dressing changes. In the first 10 patients, there were no respiratory rates <10 breaths/min, systolic and diastolic blood pressure were within 25% of baseline values, and peripheral saturation stayed more than 94% with additional small flow oxygen via nasal insufflation. There were double the demands than actual deliveries of propofol boluses. The BIS did not show significant decreases of <80 in any patient reflecting an insufficient state of sedation. Because the interim analysis of the efficacy of the PCS setup showed an insufficient state of sedation, a different PCS setup was evaluated in a second group of 10 patients (an individualized propofol bolus, titrated to achieve a significant decrease of BIS or a sleepy state, and no lockout period). The second group of patients showed a more effective sedation, with respiratory and hemodynamic variables being not significantly different from the first group of patients. PCS with propofol is feasible in burn patients and can be used safely. To provide an optimal sedation, we suggest to initially titrate the bolus to achieve a significant decrease of BIS or a clinically effective state of sedation and to abolish the lockout interval.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207