Comparing the Effects of Propofol-Ketamine and Sevoflurane-Ketamine on Emergence Delirium and Pain after General Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Interventional Cardiac Angiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Emergence delirium (ED) is a frequent postoperative complication in children. Its prevalence is about 25-80% and is observed more commonly with rapid-acting volatile anesthetics than the older inhalation agents. Methods: 30 patients aging between 2 to 8 years were included in this randomized double blind study. We compared the effect of combination of two anesthetic drugs, Propofol-Ketamine and Sevoflurane- Ketamine, on ED and pain after general anesthesia in pediatric patients undergoing interventional cardiac angiography. Agitation was measured by PAED (Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium) scoring system) and pain by the CHEOPS (Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Scale). Results: Emergence delirium in 10th minute of recovery was higher in propofol group (7.6±4.47 vs 5.07±3.31, p=0.047) but it was the same between the groups during the rest of recovery times. Pain scores were higher only at the moment of entrance to recovery room in sevoflurane group (6.27±1.99 vs 5.1±1.06, p<0.001). Mean recovery time was shorter in the sevoflurane group than in the propofol group (33.83±15.239 vs 51.67±20.585, p=0.02). Nausea and vomitting was more frequent in the sevoflurane group (6.6% vs 0%, p, 0.001), which needed no treatment. Conclusion: There are some minor differences between sevoflurane-ketamine and propofol-ketamine anesthesia. If the length of recovery is not an issue and the patients are not at high risk of nausea and vomiting, either sevoflurane-ketamine combined anesthesia or propofol-ketamine infusion can be suitably used to anesthetise patients for the pediatric cardiac catheterization procedures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".