Total spinal anesthesia for cardiac surgery: does it make a difference in patient outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. While cardiac surgery is a viable treatment option, it is a potent physiological stressor. The surgical stress response may result in patient decompensation and negative patient outcomes. The goal of a novel anesthetic approach, which combines high spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine and general anesthesia (TSA), is to attenuate this stress response. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this pilot study (n = 70) was to describe and compare the outcomes of TSA cardiac surgery with a matched control sample of patients who received the "standard general anesthetic" (GA). METHOD: A retrospective, descriptive, correlational design was used for a matched pair total sample of (n = 70). Following ethics approval, patient consents were obtained and chart review data collection was completed. FINDINGS: TSA patients were more likely to be extubated in the operating room (p < 0.0001) and also had significantly shorter overall duration of endotracheal intubation (p < 0.0008). During the initial 24 hours after surgery, the TSA group received significantly less morphine (p < 0.0001). The mean difference in postoperative hospital length of stay did not reach statistical significance. However, on average, the TSA group was discharged three days earlier than the GA group. CONCLUSION: This evidence highlights the clinical nursing relevance of the type of anesthesia on postoperative care and outcomes. The knowledge gained from these findings will help to enable the multidisciplinary critical care team to anticipate TSA patient outcomes and to facilitate the development of appropriate and effective evidence-based, patient-focused plans of care. This pilot study establishes sound rationale for subsequent larger prospective cohort research of the TSA patient population.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".