Dose-Response of Remifentanil for Tracheal Intubation in Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief To compare the dose-response of remifentanil for tracheal intubation in infants and children, 32 healthy full-term infants and 32 children were anesthetized with 10 μg/kg glycopyrrolate and 4.0 mg/kg propofol and administered 1 of 4 doses of remifentanil (1.25, 1.50, 1.75, or 2.00 μg/kg) to facilitate tracheal intubation. We determined the effective doses of remifentanil in 50% (ED50) and 98% (ED98) of patients by using logistic regression analysis. We found that logistic regression curves were similar for infants and children (P = 0.38). ED50 and ED98 values for remifentanil were 1.70 ± 0.1 μg/kg and 2.88 ± 0.5 μg/kg, respectively. In a second double-blind study, 24 infants were anesthetized with propofol and randomized to receive either 3.0 μg/kg remifentanil or 2.0 mg/kg succinylcholine to facilitate tracheal intubation. The duration of apnea, tracheal intubating conditions and hemodynamic changes were determined. We found that the duration of apnea and intubating conditions after propofol/remifentanil were similar to those after propofol/succinylcholine. Bradycardia, hypotension, and chest wall rigidity did not occur. We conclude that the dose-response of remifentanil for tracheal intubation is similar in infants and children. Propofol/remifentanil provides clinically acceptable intubating conditions, stable hemodynamics, and a duration of apnea comparable to that with propofol/succinylcholine in infants. IMPLICATIONS: The dose-response of remifentanil for tracheal intubation is similar in infants and children. In infants, coadministration of 4 mg/kg propofol and 3 μg/kg remifentanil provides clinically acceptable intubating conditions, stable hemodynamics, and a duration of apnea comparable to that after 4 mg/kg propofol and 2.0 mg/kg succinylcholine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".