The Benefit of Fentanyl in Effective Sedation and Quality of Upper Endoscopy: A Double-Blinded Randomized Trial of Fentanyl Added to Midazolam Versus Midazolam Alone for Sedation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our goals were to compare the effect of adding fentanyl to midazolam in a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial and determine if fentanyl enhances sedation, increases adverse events or effects time of the procedure or discharge. Patients 18 to 65 years scheduled for outpatient upper endoscopy were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either 100 mcg/2 mL of Fentanyl or 2 mL of placebo IV with a double-blinded protocol. All patients received 2 mg of intravenous midazolam initially. Additional midazolam could be given to achieve adequate sedation. There were 68 patients randomized to the Fentanyl group and 69 patients to the placebo group. The mean dose of midazolam was 4.0 mg for the Fentanyl group and 5.2 mg for placebo group (P=0.003). Both endoscopist and nurse independently rated sedation to be better in the fentanyl group (P=0001). The patient did not perceive any difference in sedation (P=0.4). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Fentanyl group (8.5 versus 11.1 minutes, P=0.001), with no difference in the discharge time. There was significantly less retching observed in patients in the fentanyl group (P<0.001). There were no major complications. Endoscopists and nurses found adding fentanyl significantly improved sedation, led to a shorter procedure time, and allowed for less midazolam to be used per case. It did not affect the patient experience of sedation and was safe. Fentanyl use for routine outpatient upper endoscopy should be considered as a safe option to improve procedural sedation. NCT:01514695 (www.clinicaltrials.gov) Accepted as an abstract for the Canadian Digestive Diseases Week meeting in February 2014.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".