Adverse events and outcomes of procedural sedation and analgesia in major trauma patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Trauma patients requiring procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) may have increased risk of adverse events (AEs) and poor outcomes. AIMS: To determine the incidence of AEs in adult major trauma patients who received PSA and to evaluate their postprocedural outcomes. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of adult patients (age >16) who received PSA between 2006 and 2014 at a Canadian academic tertiary care center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared the incidence of PSA-related AEs in trauma patients with nontrauma patients. Postprocedural outcomes including Intensive Care Unit admission, length of hospital stay, and mortality were compared between trauma patients who did or did not receive PSA. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 4324 patients received PSA during their procedure, of which 101 were trauma patients (107 procedures). The majority (77%) of these 101 trauma patients were male, relatively healthy (78% with American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status [ASA-PS] 1), and most (85%) of the 107 procedures were orthopedic manipulations. PSA-related AEs were experienced by 45.5% of the trauma group and 45.9% of the nontrauma group. In the trauma group, the most common AEs were tachypnea (23%) and hypotension (20%). After controlling for age, gender, and ASA-PS, trauma patients were more likely than nontrauma patients to develop hypotension (odds ratio 1.79; 95% confidence interval 1.11-2.89). CONCLUSION: Although trauma patients were more likely than nontrauma patients to develop hypotension during PSA, their outcomes were not worse compared to trauma patients who did not have PSA.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it