Dexmedetomidine as a Procedural Sedative for Percutaneous Tracheotomy: Case Report and Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To describe the successful use of dexmedetomidine as the primary procedural sedative for a percutaneous tracheotomy procedure and to systematically present the supporting literature. Materials and Methods. A Case report of our experience and systematic literature search. PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched without restriction using the key words dexmedetomidine, percutaneous tracheotomy, and tracheotomy procedure. All relevant published references were retrieved irrespective of their methodological quality. Results. In total, only 3 relevant references were found. These include one small placebo controlled randomized trial and 2 case reports. The randomized, placebo controlled trial enrolled patients already sedated on midazolam and included 64 total patients. The 2 other case reports both described the use of dexmedetomidine as the primary procedural sedative. All of the cases reported the successful completion of the percutaneous tracheotomy without any major complication, but none reported the subjective patient experience. Conclusion. Based on the available published literature and our experience, we suggest that dexmedetomidine be considered for use as the primary procedural sedative for percutaneous tracheotomy procedure. Dexmedetomidine's ability to provide adequate sedation and amnesia, without blunting the respiratory drive and protective reflexes of the patient, may make it an optimal agent in specific cases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".