Perioperative Glucose Infusion and the Catabolic Response to Surgery: The Effect of Epidural Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the nitrogen-sparing properties of epidural block and i.v. glucose on the days after surgical trauma have been well established, their metabolic effects during the acute phase of the stress response remain unclear. Therefore, in this study we investigated the effect of epidural block on glucose and protein kinetics during and immediately after surgery in patients receiving i.v. glucose at 2 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1). Sixteen patients undergoing colorectal surgery received either general anesthesia with epidural block with bupivacaine (EDA; n = 8) or general anesthesia alone (control; n = 8). Glucose and protein kinetics were determined during and 2 h after the operation by stable isotope tracers [6,6-(2)H(2)]glucose and L-[1-(13)C]leucine. Plasma concentrations of glucose, insulin, cortisol, and glucagon were also determined. Epidural block attenuated the perioperative increase in plasma glucose concentration (P < 0.05). The rate of appearance of glucose (R(a) glucose) and endogenous glucose production (EGP) were slower in the EDA group than in control subjects during (R(a) glucose, EDA 13.2 +/- 1.0 versus control 15.3 +/- 1.8 micromol x kg(-1) x min(-1); P < 0.05; EGP, EDA 1.2 +/- 1.2 versus control 3.8 +/- 1.7 micromol x kg(-1) x min(-1); P < 0.05) and after the operation (P > 0.05). Whereas protein breakdown and amino acid oxidation decreased in both groups (P < 0.05), whole-body protein synthesis remained unchanged. Insulin levels increased with both anesthetic techniques (P < 0.05). Intraoperative plasma concentrations of cortisol and glucagon were smaller in the EDA group (P < 0.05). The intraoperative suppression of EGP by exogenous glucose was more pronounced in the presence of epidural block. However, epidural block failed to exert a protein-sparing effect during the acute phase of the stress response in patients receiving i.v. glucose.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".