Efficacy and safety of remifentanil in a rapid sequence induction in elderly patients: A three-arm parallel, double blind, randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid sequence induction (RSI) is recommended in patients at risk of aspiration, but induced haemodynamic adverse events, including tachycardia. In elderly patients, this trial aimed to assess the impact of the addition of remifentanil during RSI on the occurrence of: tachycardia (primary outcome), hypertension (due to intubation) nor hypotension (remifentanil). METHODS: In this three-arm parallel, double blind, multicentre controlled study, elderly patients (65 to 90 years old) hospitalised in three centres and requiring RSI were randomly allocated to three groups, where anaesthesia was induced with etomidate (0.3mg/kg) followed within 15seconds by either placebo, or low (0.5μg/kg), or high (1.0μg/kg) doses of remifentanil, followed by succinylcholine 1.0mg/kg. Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded before induction and after intubation. RESULTS: In total, eighty patients were randomised and analysed. Baseline HR and MAP were similar between groups. For primary endpoint, the absolute change in HR between induction and intubation was greater in the control group (15 bpm; 95% CI [8-21]) than that in the remifentanil 0.5μg/kg group (4 bpm; 95% CI [-1-+8]; P=0.005) and the remifentanil 1.0μg/kg group (-3 bpm; 95% CI [-9-+3]; P<0.0001). The increase in MAP was greater in the placebo group than in both remifentanil groups (P<0.0001). Twice as many hypertension episodes were recorded in the placebo group compared to the remifentanil 0.5μg/kg and 1.0μg/kg groups (60%, 30%, and 28% patients respectively; P=0.032), but no placebo patients experienced hypotension episodes versus 11% and 24% in the remifentanil 0.5μg/kg and 1.0μg/kg groups respectively (P=0.016). CONCLUSION: Remifentanil (0.5-1.0μg/kg) prevents the occurrence of tachycardia and hypertension in elderly patients requiring RSI.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".