Dexmedetomidine versus Propofol Sedation Reduces Delirium after Cardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a serious complication after cardiac surgery. Use of dexmedetomidine to prevent delirium is controversial. The authors hypothesized that dexmedetomidine sedation after cardiac surgery would reduce the incidence of POD. METHODS: After institutional ethics review board approval, and informed consent, a single-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients 60 yr or older undergoing cardiac surgery. Patients with a history of serious mental illness, delirium, and severe dementia were excluded. Upon admission to intensive care unit (ICU), patients received either dexmedetomidine (0.4 μg/kg bolus followed by 0.2 to 0.7 μg kg h infusion) or propofol (25 to 50 μg kg min infusion) according to a computer-generated randomization code in blocks of four. Assessment of delirium was performed with confusion assessment method for ICU or confusion assessment method after discharge from ICU at 12-h intervals during the 5 postoperative days. Primary outcome was the incidence of POD. RESULTS: POD was present in 16 of 91 (17.5%) and 29 of 92 (31.5%) patients in dexmedetomidine and propofol groups, respectively (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.92; P = 0.028). Median onset of POD was on postoperative day 2 (1 to 4 days) versus 1 (1 to 4 days), P = 0.027, and duration of POD 2 days (1 to 4 days) versus 3 days (1 to 5 days), P = 0.04, in dexmedetomidine and propofol groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine sedation reduced incidence, delayed onset, and shortened duration of POD in elderly patients after cardiac surgery. The absolute risk reduction for POD was 14%, with a number needed to treat of 7.1.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".