Comparison of the Effect of Anesthesia With Midazolam-Fentanyl Versus Propofol-Remifentanil on Bispectral Index in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of anesthesia with midazolam-fentanyl versus propofol-remifentanil on the BIS (bispectral index) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Sixty-four patients undergoing CABG were randomly assigned to one of two study groups: midazolam-fentanyl (MF, N=32) or propofol-remifentanil (PR, N=32). The BIS was measured before induction of anesthesia, five minutes after induction of anesthesia, at skin incision, sternotomy, pericardiotomy, aorta cannulation, onset of cardiopulmonary bypass, during rewarming, five minutes after separation from cardiopulmonary bypass, at thorax closure, and at the end of the surgery. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to age and gender. The difference in mean BIS between the two groups was significant (P<0.05) at all times, except before induction, five minutes after induction, at skin incision and on rewarming. Changes in the BIS were lower in the PR group than in the MF group. Both techniques can provide adequate anesthesia in patients undergoing CABG. However, the probability of awareness during anesthesia is lower with propofol-remifentanil than with midazolam-fentanyl.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".