Atropine, fentanyl and succinylcholine for non-urgent intubations in newborns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Describe intubation conditions and adverse events when using atropine fentanyl +/- succinylcholine as premedication. DESIGN: Prospective observational study, as part of a quality improvement initiative. SETTING: Two level 3 neonatal intensive care units in Ottawa, Canada PATIENTS: 60 infants, median 27 weeks gestation, 1023 g at birth were included. INTERVENTIONS: Infants received atropine, fentanyl +/- succinylcholine prior to the intubation. Succinylcholine was given for all infants > or =34 weeks and at the discretion of the physician for those <34 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of attempts. Secondary outcomes were number of attempts and intubation conditions in infants who received and those who did not receive succinylcholine and safety. RESULTS: The median number of attempts was 2. 91.7% had excellent or good conditions. The median number of attempts for infants who received succinylcholine was lower (1 vs 2) than those who did not. No serious adverse events were noted. 2 cases of difficult bag and mask ventilation after administration of fentanyl were noted. CONCLUSION: Atropine, fentanyl and succinylcholine before non-urgent intubations in newborns has led to a low number of attempts and good intubation conditions with no adverse events.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".