Clonidine Does Not Reduce Pain or Opioid Consumption After Noncardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clonidine is an α2-adrenoceptor agonist, which has analgesic properties. However, the analgesic efficacy of perioperative clonidine remains unclear. We, therefore, tested the hypothesis that clonidine reduces both pain scores and cumulative opioid consumption during the initial 72 hours after noncardiac surgery. METHODS: Six hundred twenty-four patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery under general and spinal anesthesia were included in this substudy of the PeriOperative ISchemia Evaluation-2 trial. Patients were randomly assigned to 0.2 mg oral clonidine or placebo 2 to 4 hours before surgery, followed by 0.2 mg/d transdermal clonidine patch or placebo patch, which was maintained until 72 hours after surgery. Postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption were assessed for 72 hours after surgery. RESULTS: Clonidine had no effect on opioid consumption compared with placebo, with an estimated ratio of means of 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-1.38); P = 0.92. Median (Q1, Q3) opioid consumption was 63 (30, 154) mg morphine equivalents in the clonidine group, which was similar to 60 (30, 128) mg morphine equivalents in the placebo group. Furthermore, there was no significant effect on pain scores, with an estimated difference in means of 0.12 (95% confidence interval, -0.02 to 0.26); 11-point scale; P = 0.10. Mean pain scores per patient were 3.6 ± 1.8 for clonidine patients and 3.6 ± 1.8 for placebo patients. CONCLUSIONS: Clonidine does not reduce opioid consumption or pain scores in patients recovering from noncardiac surgery.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".