Remifentanil vs fentanyl/morphine for pain and stress control during pediatric cardiac surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remifentanil is a short acting, potent synthetic opioid that does not accumulate after infusion or repeated bolus doses. It may be rapidly titrated to the requirements of individual patients. Titrated infusion of remifentanil may be able to provide potent analgesia required for pediatric cardiac surgery and obtund the stress response in theater whilst not having the persistent respiratory depression and sedation seen with longer acting opioids. METHODS: Twenty patients were randomized to receive a titrated infusion of remifentanil (0-1 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)) or a standard dose of fentanyl (30 microg x kg(-1)) prebypass plus morphine (1 mg x kg(-1)) on rewarming. Blood samples for glucose and cortisol were taken at regular intervals from induction through bypass and into the first 24 h of postoperative intensive care. In addition to biochemical indicators of the stress response we recorded baseline hemodynamic parameters and any acute physiological events. RESULTS: Ten patients received morphine, seven received remifentanil. There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in cortisol measurements, mean arterial pressure or heart rate recordings. In the last time period the remifentanil group had a larger rise in blood glucose concentration (baseline 3.9, rise 3 mmol x l(-1)) than the fentanyl/morphine group (baseline 4.2 rise 1.9 mmol x l(-1)), CI -4.3 to -0.2. CONCLUSIONS: The only significant difference was in glucose in the postbypass time periods. Although statistically significant, this difference is insufficient evidence of increased stress in the remifentanil group. The results show that in the patients studied there was no clinically important difference between the two techniques.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".