Remifentanil for endotracheal intubation in neonates: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of remifentanil as a premedication in neonates undergoing elective endotracheal intubation. DESIGN: A double-blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary care neonatal intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Haemodynamically stable term and preterm neonates requiring elective endotracheal intubation. INTERVENTIONS: Infants in the intervention arm received remifentanil (3 microg/kg) and normal saline placebo. The control group received fentanyl (2 microg/kg) and succinylcholine (2 mg/kg). Both groups also received atropine (20 microg/kg) as part of the premedication regime. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to successful intubation. Secondary outcomes included time to return of spontaneous respirations, oxygen saturation, heart rate and blood pressure changes during the procedure, adverse events and a survey of intubation conditions. RESULTS: A total of 15 infants were randomised to each group. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The median time to successful intubation was not statistically different (247 s in the remifentanil group vs 156 s in the fentanyl group, p=0.88). The intubation conditions were rated more favourably with fentanyl by the intubators. Although not statistically significant, chest wall rigidity was observed more commonly with remifentanil. CONCLUSIONS: Although remifentanil is comparable to fentanyl and succinylcholine in attenuating adverse physiologic responses during neonatal intubation, muscle rigidity is a concern at doses of 3 microg/kg. Further trials are required to evaluate ideal dosing regimens and combinations of agents for use with remifentanil in neonates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".