Clonidine Facilitates Controlled Hypotension in Adolescent Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we investigated whether clonidine lessened the requirements for isoflurane, fentanyl, and labetalol to provide controlled hypotension in children who underwent oromaxillofacial surgery. We also studied preoperative sedative effects, the hemodynamic response to nasotracheal intubation, and recovery characteristics. Thirty-nine healthy children, aged 10-16 yr, received clonidine 5 micro g/kg or placebo on the night before surgery and 90 min before surgery. By self-assessment, children in both groups showed similar anxiety, whereas observers rated clonidine patients as more sedated (P < 0.01). Heart rate during induction remained significantly decreased in clonidine patients compared with placebo patients (P < 0.001), as did arterial blood pressure before induction (P < 0.01) and peak pressure after intubation (P < 0.001). Children who took clonidine required significantly less isoflurane to maintain a mean arterial blood pressure of 60 +/- 4 mm Hg (mean isoflurane concentration, clonidine 0.99% versus placebo 1.33; P = 0.0004) and required less fentanyl than placebo patients (P = 0.002). Fewer treatment patients received labetalol (clonidine, n = 3 versus placebo, n = 13; P = 0.004). There was a trend toward faster recovery in the clonidine group, with a shortened recovery room stay (P = 0.03). We conclude that clonidine is a useful adjunct for controlled hypotension in children. IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that adolescents having major jaw surgery are helped by the blood pressure-decreasing drug clonidine. This drug allows smaller doses of anesthetics, pain relievers, and blood pressure-decreasing drugs to be used; reduces changes in heart rate and blood pressure; and provides faster recovery from the anesthetic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".