Anesthetic Cardioprotection in Clinical Practice From Proof-of-Concept to Clinical Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, the American Heart Association (AHA) recommended (class IIa, level of evidence B) in their guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery volatile anesthetics as first choice for general anesthesia in hemodynamically stable patients at risk for myocardial ischemia. This recommendation was based on results from patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and thus subject to criticism. However, since a "good anesthetic" often resembles a piece of art in the complex perioperative environment, and is difficult to highly standardize, it seems unlikely that large-scale randomized control trials in noncardiac surgical patients will be performed in the near future to tackle this question. There is growing evidence that ether-derived volatile anesthetics and opioids provide cardioprotection in patients undergoing CABG surgery. Since 2011, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/AHA have recommended a "volatile-based anesthesia" for these procedures (class IIa, level of evidence A). It is very likely that volatile anesthetics and opioids also protect hearts of noncardiac surgical patients. However, age, diabetes and myocardial remodeling diminish the cardioprotective benefits of anesthetics. In patients at risk for perioperative cardiovascular complications, it is essential to abandon the use of "anti-conditioning" drugs (sulfonylureas and COX-2 inhibitors) and probably glitazones. There is significant interference in cardioprotection between sevoflurane and propofol, which should not be used concomitantly during anesthesia if possible. Any type of ischemic "conditioning" appears to exhibit markedly reduced protection or completely loses protection in the presence of volatile anesthetics and/or opioids.
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 | 0.075 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".