Differences in Blood Pressure in Infants After General Anesthesia Compared to Awake Regional Anesthesia (GAS Study—A Prospective Randomized Trial)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The General Anesthesia compared to Spinal anesthesia (GAS) study is a prospective randomized, controlled, multisite, trial designed to assess the influence of general anesthesia (GA) on neurodevelopment at 5 years of age. A secondary aim obtained from the blood pressure data of the GAS trial is to compare rates of intraoperative hypotension after anesthesia and to identify risk factors for intraoperative hypotension. METHODS: A total of 722 infants ≤60 weeks postmenstrual age undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy were randomized to either bupivacaine regional anesthesia (RA) or sevoflurane GA. Exclusion criteria included risk factors for adverse neurodevelopmental outcome and infants born at <26 weeks of gestation. Moderate hypotension was defined as mean arterial pressure measurement of <35 mm Hg. Any hypotension was defined as mean arterial pressure of <45 mm Hg. Epochs were defined as 5-minute measurement periods. The primary outcome was any measured hypotension <35 mm Hg from start of anesthesia to leaving the operating room. This analysis is reported primarily as intention to treat (ITT) and secondarily as per protocol. RESULTS: The relative risk of GA compared with RA predicting any measured hypotension of <35 mm Hg from the start of anesthesia to leaving the operating room was 2.8 (confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.1; P < .001) by ITT analysis and 4.5 (CI, 2.7-7.4, P < .001) as per protocol analysis. In the GA group, 87% and 49%, and in the RA group, 41% and 16%, exhibited any or moderate hypotension by ITT, respectively. In multivariable modeling, group assignment (GA versus RA), weight at the time of surgery, and minimal intraoperative temperature were risk factors for hypotension. Interventions for hypotension occurred more commonly in the GA group compared with the RA group (relative risk, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4 by ITT). CONCLUSIONS: RA reduces the incidence of hypotension and the chance of intervention to treat it compared with sevoflurane anesthesia in young infants undergoing inguinal hernia repair.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".