MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568940343 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000005815

The efficacy of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine-propofol in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy

2017· article· en· W2568940343 on OpenAlexaff
Hongquan Zhang, Baojun Fang, Wenjing Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsCAE (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDexmedetomidinePropofolRemifentanilAnesthesiaMidazolamPerioperativeSedationBronchoscopyLidocaineHemodynamicsAdverse effectAnesthesiologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flexible bronchoscopy has been more and more used for diagnosis and management diseases of respiratory system in pediatrics. Previous studies have reported that remifentanil (RF) and propofol are safe and effective for flexible bronchoscopy in adults, however, there have no trials evaluate the efficacy of DEX-RF versus dexmedetomidine-propofol in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy.We divided 123 children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with DEX-RF or dexmedetomidine-propofol into 2 groups: Group DR (n = 63, DEX infusion at 1.0 μg kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.5-0.7 μg kg h; RF infusion at 1.0 μg kg for 5 minutes, then adjusted to 0.05-0.2 μg kg min), Group DP (n = 60, DEX infusion at 1.0 μg kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.5-0.7 μg kg h; propofol infusion at 10 μg kg for 5 minutes, then adjusted to 0.05-0.1 μg kg min). Ramsay sedation scale of the 2 groups was maintained at 3. Anesthesia onset time; total number of intraoperative patient movements; hemodynamics; total cumulative dose of DEX; amount of and time to first-dose rescue midazolam and lidocaine; postoperative recovery time; adverse events; and bronchoscopist satisfaction score were recorded.Anesthesia onset time was significantly shorter in DP (8.22 ± 2.48 vs 12.25 ± 6.43 minutes, respectively, for DP, DR, P = 0.015). The perioperative hemodynamic profile was more stable in DR than DP group. More children moved during flexible bronchoscopy in DP group (P = 0.009). Total dose of rescue midazolam and lidocaine was significantly higher in DR than in DP (P < 0.001). Similarly, the time to first dose of rescue midazolam and lidocaine was significantly longer in DP than in DR (P < 0.001). Total cumulative dose of DEX was more in DR than DP group (P < 0.001). The time to recovery for discharge from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) was significantly shorter in DP than in DR group (P < 0.001). The bronchoscopist-satisfaction scores were higher for DR than DP (P = 0.036). There were significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the overall incidence of hypertension, tachycardia, and hypoxemia (P < 0.05).Although underwent longer recovery time and more incidence of rescue scheme, DEX-RF resulted in more stable hemodynamic profiles and bronchoscopist-satisfaction scores, lesser patient movements, and can hence be more effectively used in children undergoing flexible bronchoscopy than dexmedetomidine-propofol.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.306 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207