Coadministration of Propofol and Remifentanil for Lumbar Puncture in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The combination of propofol and remifentanil may be particularly suitable for short-duration procedures such as lumbar puncture. The authors undertook a two-part study to evaluate coadministration of propofol and remifentanil as an anesthetic technique for lumbar puncture in children. METHODS: The first part was a sequential allocation dose-finding study to determine the minimum effective dose of remifentanil when coadministered with 2.0 or 4.0 mg/kg propofol. The second was a randomized double-blind study to compare the intraoperative and recovery characteristics of 2.0 or 4.0 mg/kg propofol coadministered with the corresponding effective dose of remifentanil. RESULTS: Effective doses of remifentanil in 98% of children were 1.50 +/- 1.00 and 0.52 +/- 1.06 microg/kg when coadministered with 2.0 and 4.0 mg/kg propofol, respectively. The duration of apnea was longer (median, 110 vs. 73 s; P < 0.05) and the time to awakening was shorter (median, 10 vs. 23 min; P < 0.05) after 2.0 mg/kg propofol plus 1.5 microg/kg remifentanil compared with 4.0 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5 microg/kg remifentanil. No child experienced hypotension or postprocedure nausea or vomiting after either dose combination. CONCLUSIONS: Both dose combinations (2.0 mg/kg propofol plus 1.5 microg/kg remifentanil and 4.0 mg/kg propofol plus 0.5 microg/kg remifentanil) provide effective anesthesia for lumbar puncture in children. However, the intraoperative and recovery characteristics of the two dose combinations differ in that the duration of apnea increases whereas recovery time decreases as the dose of remifentanil is increased and that of propofol is decreased.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".