MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912852742 · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.22005

Effect of Electroencephalography-Guided Anesthetic Administration on Postoperative Delirium Among Older Adults Undergoing Major Surgery

2019· article· en· W2912852742 on OpenAlexaff
Troy S. Wildes, Angela M. Mickle, Arbi Ben Abdallah, Hannah Maybrier, Jordan Oberhaus, Thaddeus P. Budelier, Alex Kronzer, Sherry McKinnon, Daniel Park, Brian A. Torres, Thomas J. Graetz, Daniel A. Emmert, Ben Julian A. Palanca, Shreya Goswami, Katherine Jordan, Nan Lin, Bradley A. Fritz, Tracey Stevens, Eric Jacobsohn, Eva M. Schmitt, Sharon K. Inouye, Susan Stark, Eric J. Lenze, Michael S. Avidan

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialPostoperative nausea and vomitingAnestheticNauseaEmergence deliriumAdverse effectSurgerySevofluraneInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Intraoperative electroencephalogram (EEG) waveform suppression, often suggesting excessive general anesthesia, has been associated with postoperative delirium. Objective: To assess whether EEG-guided anesthetic administration decreases the incidence of postoperative delirium. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial of 1232 adults aged 60 years and older undergoing major surgery and receiving general anesthesia at Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St Louis. Recruitment was from January 2015 to May 2018, with follow-up until July 2018. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 (stratified by cardiac vs noncardiac surgery and positive vs negative recent fall history) to receive EEG-guided anesthetic administration (n = 614) or usual anesthetic care (n = 618). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was incident delirium during postoperative days 1 through 5. Intraoperative measures included anesthetic concentration, EEG suppression, and hypotension. Adverse events included undesirable intraoperative movement, intraoperative awareness with recall, postoperative nausea and vomiting, medical complications, and death. Results: Of the 1232 randomized patients (median age, 69 years [range, 60 to 95]; 563 women [45.7%]), 1213 (98.5%) were assessed for the primary outcome. Delirium during postoperative days 1 to 5 occurred in 157 of 604 patients (26.0%) in the guided group and 140 of 609 patients (23.0%) in the usual care group (difference, 3.0% [95% CI, -2.0% to 8.0%]; P = .22). Median end-tidal volatile anesthetic concentration was significantly lower in the guided group than the usual care group (0.69 vs 0.80 minimum alveolar concentration; difference, -0.11 [95% CI, -0.13 to -0.10), and median cumulative time with EEG suppression was significantly less (7 vs 13 minutes; difference, -6.0 [95% CI, -9.9 to -2.1]). There was no significant difference between groups in the median cumulative time with mean arterial pressure below 60 mm Hg (7 vs 7 minutes; difference, 0.0 [95% CI, -1.7 to 1.7]). Undesirable movement occurred in 137 patients (22.3%) in the guided and 95 (15.4%) in the usual care group. No patients reported intraoperative awareness. Postoperative nausea and vomiting was reported in 48 patients (7.8%) in the guided and 55 patients (8.9%) in the usual care group. Serious adverse events were reported in 124 patients (20.2%) in the guided and 130 (21.0%) in the usual care group. Within 30 days of surgery, 4 patients (0.65%) in the guided group and 19 (3.07%) in the usual care group died. Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults undergoing major surgery, EEG-guided anesthetic administration, compared with usual care, did not decrease the incidence of postoperative delirium. This finding does not support the use of EEG-guided anesthetic administration for this indication. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02241655.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations459
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207