Effects of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam on postoperative cognitive dysfunction in elderly patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is a serious complication after surgery, especially in elderly patients. The anesthesia technique is a potentially modifiable risk factor for POCD. This study assessed the effects of dexmedetomidine, propofol or midazolam sedation on POCD in elderly patients who underwent hip or knee replacement under spinal anesthesia. METHODS: The present study was a prospective randomized controlled preliminary trial. From July 2013 and December 2014, a total of 164 patients aged 65 years or older who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty at China-Japan Friendship Hospital and 41 non-surgical controls were included in this study. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to 3 sedative groups. All the patients received combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) with midazolam, dexmedetomidine or propofol sedation. The sedative dose was adjusted to achieve light sedation (bispectral index[BIS] score between 70 and 85). All study participants and controls completed a battery of 5 neuropsychological tests before and 7 days after surgery. One year postoperatively, the patients and controls were interviewed over the telephone using the Montreal cognitive assessment 5-minute protocol. RESULTS: In all, 60 of 164 patients (36.6%) were diagnosed with POCD 7 days postoperatively, POCD incidence in propofol group was significantly lower than that in dexmedetomidine and midazolam groups (18.2% vs. 40.0%, 51.9%, χ = 6.342 and 13.603, P = 0.012 and < 0.001). When the patients were re-tested 1 year postoperatively, the incidence of POCD was not significantly different among the 3 groups (14.0%, 10.6% vs. 14.9%, χ = 0.016 and 0.382, P = 0.899 and 0.536). CONCLUSION: Among dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam sedation in elderly patients, propofol sedation shows a significant advantage in term of short-term POCD incidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".