MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945010793 · doi:10.1016/j.bjane.2019.04.001

Sufentanil during anesthetic induction of remifentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

2019· article· en· W2945010793 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Carvalho de Menezes, Edison Iglesias de Oliveira Vidal, Cesar Martins da Costa, Glenio B. Mizubuti, Anthony M.‐H. Ho, Guilherme Antônio Moreira de Barros, Fernanda Bono Fukushima

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsRemifentanilMedicineSufentanilAnesthesiaVomitingNauseaAnalgesicRandomized controlled trialAnestheticPostoperative nausea and vomitingAdverse effectPost-anesthesia care unitMorphineAlfentanilAbdominal surgeryFentanylPacuSurgeryPropofol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Postoperative pain represents an important concern when remifentanil is used for total intravenous anesthesia because of its ultrashort half-life. Longer acting opioids, such as sufentanil, have been used during induction of remifentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia as a means to overcome this shortcoming. However, the effectiveness and safety of such strategy still lacks evidence from randomized clinical trials. Hence, we aimed to assess the postoperative analgesic efficacy and safety of a single dose of sufentanil administered during the induction of remifentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia. Forty patients, scheduled for elective open abdominal surgery, were randomized to receive remifentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia with or without a single dose of sufentanil upon induction. We assessed the postoperative morphine consumption administered through a patient-controlled analgesia pump. Self-reported pain scores and the occurrence of nausea, vomiting, pruritus, agitation, somnolence and respiratory depression were also assessed up to 2 days after surgery. The mean difference between the sufentanil and control groups regarding morphine consumption in the post-anesthetic care unit and at 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery were −7.2 mg (95%CI: −12.5 to −2.1, p < 0.001), −3.9 mg (95%CI: −11.9 to 4.7, p = 0.26), −0.6 mg (95%CI: (−12.7 to 12.7, p = 0.80), and −1.8 mg (95%CI: (−11.6 to 15.6, p = 0.94), respectively. Neither self-reported pain nor the incidence of adverse events were significantly different between groups at any time point. Our findings suggest that the administration of sufentanil during induction of remifentanil-based total intravenous anesthesia is associated with decreased early postoperative opioid consumption. A dor pós-operatória é uma grande preocupação quando o remifentanil é usado para anestesia intravenosa total devido à sua meia-vida ultracurta. Os opioides de ação mais longa, como o sufentanil, têm sido usados durante a indução de anestesia intravenosa total à base de remifentanil como um meio de superar essa deficiência. Porém, a eficácia e segurança de tal estratégia ainda precisam de evidências advindas de ensaios clínicos randômicos. Portanto, objetivamos avaliar a eficácia analgésica e a segurança pós-operatória de uma dose única de sufentanil administrada durante a indução de anestesia intravenosa total à base de remifentanil. Quarenta pacientes eletivamente agendados para cirurgia abdominal aberta foram randomizados para receber anestesia intravenosa total à base de remifentanil, com ou sem uma dose única de sufentanil, após a indução da anestesia. Avaliamos o consumo de morfina no pós-operatório, administrado através de uma bomba de analgesia controlada pelo paciente. Os escores de dor autorrelatados e a ocorrência de náusea, vômito, prurido, agitação, sonolência e depressão respiratória também foram avaliados até dois dias após a cirurgia. A diferença média entre os grupos sufentanil e controle em relação ao consumo de morfina em sala de recuperação pós-anestesia e após 12, 24 e 48 horas da cirurgia foi de -7,2 mg (IC 95%: -12,5 a -2,1, p < 0,001), -3,9 mg (IC 95%: -11,9 a 4,7, p = 0,26), -0,6 mg (IC 95%: (-12,7 a 12,7, p = 0,80) e -1,8 mg (IC 95%: -11,6 para 15,6, p = 0,94), respectivamente. Não houve diferença significativa tanto nos escores de dor autorrelatados, quanto na incidência de eventos adversos entre os grupos. Nossos achados sugerem que a administração de sufentanil durante a indução de anestesia intravenosa total à base de remifentanil está associada à redução do consumo de opioides no pós-operatório imediato.

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)0.003
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition)Same topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207