Effects of 3 analgesic regimens on the perception of pain after removal of femoral artery sheaths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective pain management after removal of femoral artery sheaths after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty is highly individualized and requires frequent, accurate assessment and administration of analgesics as needed. OBJECTIVE: To determine which of 3 analgesic regimens is most effective in decreasing patients' perception of pain with the fewest side effects after removal of a femoral artery sheath. SAMPLE: 130 adult who had undergone percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and were in an 8-bed cardiac short-stay unit in a 1400-bed acute care hospital. METHOD: Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous morphine, intravenous fentanyl, subcutaneous lidocaine around the sheath site, or an intravenous placebo before sheath removal. Rescue analgesia (intravenous fentanyl) was made available to all groups. Patients used a visual analog scale to assess pain within 10 minutes before, 1 minute after, and 20 minutes after sheath removal. Pain levels, frequency of side effects, and use of rescue analgesia were compared among groups. RESULTS: Age, sex, number of stents, and frequency of hematomas did not differ significantly among groups. Pain ratings, use of rescue analgesia, and side effects (nausea, vomiting, or vasovagal symptoms) were not significantly different among treatment groups. Ratings of pain were slightly higher immediately after sheath removal in all groups. CONCLUSION: For most patients, removal of femoral artery sheaths and manual compression for hemostasis are relatively pain-free. Pain scores among patients given analgesia with subcutaneous lidocaine, intravenous morphine, or intravenous fentanyl were not significantly different from pain scores among control patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".