Postoperative naproxen after coronary artery bypass surgery: a double-blind randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are routinely used after coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), yet their effects have seldom been evaluated in randomized controlled settings. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of a commonly used NSAID, naproxen. We hypothesized that naproxen would reduce postoperative pain following CABG without increasing complications. METHODS: Patients (N=98) undergoing primary CABG were randomized to receive naproxen (500 mg q12hX5 doses via suppository started 1h after operation, followed by oral 250 mg q8hX6 doses) or placebo. Standard analgesic and anti-emetic regimens were available to both patient groups. Interventions were double-blinded. Primary end-points were postoperative pain measured before and after chest physiotherapy by visual analog scale and pulmonary slow vital capacity (SVC). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were equivalent between the two groups. Over the first 4 postoperative days, naproxen decreased pain by 47+/-17% on average before chest physiotherapy (P=0.034), and 44+/-13% after chest physiotherapy (P=0.0092). Patients who received naproxen also had better preservation of SVC over the first 4 postoperative days (mean loss of SVC from baseline: 2.1+/-0.1 vs. 2.5+/-0.1l, naproxen vs. placebo, P=0.0032). This was concomitant with a lower white blood cell count observed in naproxen patients (9.2+/-0.3 vs. 12.7+/-1.5x10(9)/l, naproxen vs. placebo, P=0.03). Patients who received naproxen had more chest tube drainage after 4h postoperatively, but there was no difference in the incidence or amount of transfusions. There was no difference in medication use, length of stay, or in the incidence of atrial fibrillation, azotemia, and other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Naproxen is an effective and low-cost adjunct for optimization of pain control and lung recovery after CABG. Its use may result in increased chest tube drainage, but no apparent increase in other complications.
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 | 0.029 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".