MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333217164 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181f5ba04

Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Spontaneous Ventilation for Foreign Body Removal in Children

2010· letter· en· W2333217164 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephan Malherbe, J. Mark Ansermino

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemifentanilPropofolMedicineAnesthesiaBolus (digestion)AnestheticApneaAirwaySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor In a recent study, Chen et al.1 compared the risk factors for hypoxia when using 4 different anesthetic techniques for removal of foreign bodies in children younger than 5 years old. The fact that the authors found that patients breathing spontaneously and receiving total IV anesthesia (TIVA) had more movement, breath holding, and a lower success rate with foreign body removal is not surprising and is, in our opinion, attributable to the too small doses of propofol and remifentanil administered. Subjects received a bolus of propofol (3\N5 mg/kg) and remifentanil (1 μg/kg) followed by infusions of propofol (100\N150 μg/kg/min) and remifentanil (0.1 μg/kg/min). Simulations (TIVATrainer®) of the doses described would have produced near steady-state (15 minutes) effect-site concentration of propofol of 2.9 μg/mL based on the Paedfusor model2 and remifentanil of 0.55 μg/mL based on the Rigby-Jones model.3 These concentrations would be considered low even in adults. Moreover, most children will tolerate larger does of remifentanil (and propofol) while maintaining spontaneous respiration.4 Our institutional practice is to use TIVA with remifentanil and propofol for most of our patients undergoing airway endoscopy. In a prospective study, we found the mean remifentanil dose to be 0.21 (SD 0.31) μg/kg/min and propofol infusion rate to be 368 (SD 103) μg/kg/min.5 The wide interindividual variability dictates that drugs are titrated to clinical effect within a wide dose range. The greater incidence of laryngospasm in the TIVA group might also reflect the too small dose of the drugs. Reflex laryngeal responses occur less frequently and of shorter duration with propofol anesthesia compared with sevoflurane,6 and propofol is often used for treatment of mild laryngospasm. We conclude that the increased complication rate seen in the group using TIVA and spontaneous ventilation may have been due to the low doses used and not a result of the technique selected. Stephan Malherbe, MBBCh, FFA(SA), MMed, FRCP J. Mark Ansermino, MBBCh, MSc(Inf), FFA(SA), FRCPC Department of Pediatric Anesthesia British Columbia Children's Hospital Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [email protected]

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.244
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designCase report
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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207