MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of age on the dose of remifentanil for tracheal intubation in infants and children

2009· article· en· W2170890268 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Hume‐Smith, Jon McCormack, Carolyne J. Montgomery, Rollin Brant, Stephan Malherbe, Disha Mehta, J. Mark Ansermino

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRemifentanilTracheal intubationAnesthesiaIntubationBolus (digestion)PropofolSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to determine the age-specific bolus dose of remifentanil (ED(50)) to facilitate tracheal intubation without the use of neuromuscular blocking agents. METHODS: ASA 1-2 subjects were recruited into three groups of 0-3 months (group I), 4-12 months (group II), and 1-3 years (group III) of age. A sequential up-and-down design determined the remifentanil bolus dose, which was initially started at 3 mcg x kg(-1) and adjusted in 1 mcg x kg(-1) increments (range 1-6 mcg x kg(-1)). Following pretreatment with glycopyrrolate 10 microg x kg(-1) and an induction dose of propofol 5 mg x kg(-1), remifentanil was administered with a blinded study investigator commencing tracheal intubation after 60 s. After tracheal intubation, the time to return of spontaneous ventilation was measured. Logistic regression was used to predict the ED(50) and ED(95) of remifentanil. RESULTS: Sixty-four subjects were recruited. Tracheal intubation was successful at first attempt in over 90% of subjects in each age group. Satisfactory intubating conditions were achieved in 85%, 63%, and 75% of subjects in groups I, II, and III, respectively. The logistic regression results for ED(50) (95% CI) were 3.1 (2.5-3.8), 3.7 (2.0-5.4), and 3.0 (2.1-3.9) mcg x kg(-1), and ED(95) (95% CI) were 5.0 (3.0-7.0), 9.4 (1.5-17.4), and 5.6 (2.9-8.4) mcg x kg(-1) in groups I, II, and III, respectively. Infants aged 4-12 months (group II) showed a marked variability in dose response; however, the mean ED(50) and ED(95) were not different to groups I and III. Older children had a longer duration of apnea than infants, 331 vs 180 s (P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: The ED(50) of remifentanil for tracheal intubation was higher in all age groups than previously reported. Ideal intubating conditions were achieved in 50% of subjects with remifentanil doses of 3.1-3.7 mcg x kg(-1). Higher doses will be required for higher success rates and with anticholinergic pretreatment, doses of up to 6 mcg x kg(-1) were tolerated, without adverse effects, in two patients. Further investigation of the variability in dose response in infants and assessment of the safety this technique is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207