Comparison of Cognitive Impairments After Intensive Care Unit Sedation Using Dexmedetomidine and Propofol Among Older Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the high prevalence of cognitive impairment among older adults, little is known about the association of the selection of dexmedetomidine and propofol on cognitive functions of patients after a critical illness. Patients aged ≥70 years who received intensive care unit (ICU) care from Cangzhou Central Hospital between 2013 and 2016 were enrolled and randomized into a dexmedetomidine group and a propofol group with matched demographic and clinical characteristics. At discharge from the ICU and 4 weeks later, the cognitive status of patients was assessed and compared using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment system. There were 164 patients included in the dexmedetomidine group and 159 patients in the propofol group. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in terms of age, female sex, body weight, educational level, ICU and hospital stay, comorbidities, and medications. Further, patients from the 2 groups at ICU discharge did not demonstrate significant difference on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment component scores, which showed significant differences between the 2 groups 4 weeks later (P < .05). Moreover, dexmedetomidine and propofol showed different levels of impacts on the cognitive function of patients discharged from the postanesthesia care unit, neurological ICU, and medical ICU. This study demonstrated that patients discharged from the ICU who received propofol for sedation showed less impairment on the cognitive functions when compared with patients who received dexmedetomidine during ICU care 4 weeks after discharge. Despite some limitations, this study provides insights to the decision-making process in the selection of appropriate sedation strategy, especially for the elderly patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".