MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811036281 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000003633

Dexmedetomidine Versus Remifentanil for Monitored Anesthesia Care During Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2018· article· en· W2811036281 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick St-Pierre, Issam Tanoubi, Olivier Verdonck, Louis‐Philippe Fortier, Philippe Richebé, Isabelle Côté, Christian Loubert, Pierre Drolet

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDexmedetomidineRemifentanilAnesthesiaSedationBolus (digestion)Adverse effectSurgeryPropofolInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that, compared to remifentanil, dexmedetomidine used for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) performed under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) in nonintubated patients would result in fewer episodes of major respiratory adverse events (number of episodes of bradypnea, apnea or desaturation) but no difference in satisfaction with perioperative conditions. METHODS: Sixty (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) patients scheduled to undergo EBUS-TBNA under MAC were randomized to receive either remifentanil (0.5 µg/kg IV bolus) in 10 minutes, followed by 0.05-0.25 µg/kg/min, or dexmedetomidine (0.4 µg/kg IV bolus) in 10 minutes, followed by 0.5-1.0 µg/kg/h. The primary outcome was the number of major respiratory adverse events (bradypnea, apnea, or hypoxia). The secondary outcomes included hemodynamic variables, discharge time from the postanesthesia care unit, endotracheal lidocaine use, patient's sedation using the Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale, operative conditions, operator and patient satisfaction, pain, coughing, vocal cord mobility, recall, and nausea/vomiting. RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine produced significantly fewer episodes of major respiratory events (bradypnea, apnea, or desaturation), with 0 [0-0.5] episodes versus 2 [0-5] (median [interquartile range]) (P = .001), than did remifentanil. Fewer episodes of bradypnea or apnea (dexmedetomidine: 0 [0-0] versus remifentanil: 0 [0-0.5]; P = .031), and fewer episodes of desaturation (dexmedetomidine: 0 [0-0.5] versus remifentanil: 1 [0-4]; P = .039) were recorded in the dexmedetomidine group. The time needed for patients to meet postanesthesia care unit discharge criteria (Aldrete score: 9) after EBUS-TBNA was longer in the dexmedetomidine group (10 [3-37.5] minutes) versus the remifentanil group (3 [3-5] minutes) (P < .001). No differences were observed in the 2 groups for sedation depth (Observer Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale), endotracheal lidocaine use, operative conditions, operator and patient satisfaction, pain, coughing, vocal cord mobility, recall, and nausea/vomiting episodes. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine resulted in fewer respiratory adverse events during EBUS-TBNA under MAC, when compared to remifentanil, with no difference in overall operative conditions. However, dexmedetomidine use was associated with delayed postoperative discharge.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207