MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103545765 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1401106

Clonidine in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

2014· article· en· W2103545765 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
P.J. Devereaux, Daniel I. Sessler, Kate Leslie, Andrea Kurz, Marko Mrkobrada, Pablo Alonso‐Coello, Juan Carlos Villar, Alben Sigamani, Bruce Biccard, Christian S. Meyhoff, Joel L. Parlow, Gordon Guyatt, Andrea Robinson, Amit X. Garg, Reitze Rodseth, Fernando Botto, Giovanna Lurati Buse, Denis Xavier, Matthew T.V. Chan, Maria Tiboni, Priya A. Kumar, Patrice Forget, Germán Málaga, Edith Fleischmann, Mohammed Amir, John W. Eikelboom, Richard Mizera, David Torres, Caiyun Wang, Tomas VanHelder, Pilar Paniagua, Otávio Berwanger, Sadeesh Srinathan, Michelle M. Graham, Laura Pasin, Yannick Le Manach, Peggy Gao, Janice Pogue, Richard Whitlock, André Lamy, Clive Kearon, Clara K Chow, Shirley Pettit, Susan Chrolavicius, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCliniques Universitaires Saint-LucCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillGeorge Institute for Global HealthDepartment of Surgery, University of ManitobaUniversidad Autónoma de BucaramangaQueen's UniversityChinese University of Hong KongInyuvesi Yakwazulu-NataliLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversiti MalayaUniversity of SydneyHerlev HospitalMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of AlbertaCleveland Clinic
KeywordsClonidineMedicinePlaceboHazard ratioPerioperativeAnesthesiaMyocardial infarctionConfidence intervalSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Marked activation of the sympathetic nervous system occurs during and after noncardiac surgery. Low-dose clonidine, which blunts central sympathetic outflow, may prevent perioperative myocardial infarction and death without inducing hemodynamic instability. METHODS: We performed a blinded, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design to allow separate evaluation of low-dose clonidine versus placebo and low-dose aspirin versus placebo in patients with, or at risk for, atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. A total of 10,010 patients at 135 centers in 23 countries were enrolled. For the comparison of clonidine with placebo, patients were randomly assigned to receive clonidine (0.2 mg per day) or placebo just before surgery, with the study drug continued until 72 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: Clonidine, as compared with placebo, did not reduce the number of primary-outcome events (367 and 339, respectively; hazard ratio with clonidine, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.26; P=0.29). Myocardial infarction occurred in 329 patients (6.6%) assigned to clonidine and in 295 patients (5.9%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.30; P=0.18). Significantly more patients in the clonidine group than in the placebo group had clinically important hypotension (2385 patients [47.6%] vs. 1854 patients [37.1%]; hazard ratio 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.40; P<0.001). Clonidine, as compared with placebo, was associated with an increased rate of nonfatal cardiac arrest (0.3% [16 patients] vs. 0.1% [5 patients]; hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 8.73; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of low-dose clonidine in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery did not reduce the rate of the composite outcome of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; it did, however, increase the risk of clinically important hypotension and nonfatal cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations390
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207