MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998500624 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000001131

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol sedation in reducing delirium among older adults in the ICU

2019· review· en· W2998500624 on OpenAlexaff
Jarett Vanz‐Brian Pereira, Rohan Sanjanwala, Mohammed K. Mohammed, Mê‐Linh Lê, Rakesh C. Arora

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDexmedetomidineMedicineDeliriumSedationPropofolAnesthesiaSedativeIncidence (geometry)Confidence intervalEmergence deliriumIntensive care unitIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in the ICU, with incidence rates reported to be upwards of 70%. Due to the significant morbidity and mortality associated with delirium, it is hypothesised that a delirium-free sedative agent will improve outcomes in older adults admitted to the ICU. OBJECTIVES: To assess if dexmedetomidine sedation is associated with a reduction in ICU delirium among older adults, and to evaluate its risks and benefits compared with propofol sedation. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies with meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Articles published from database inception to 8 April 2019 were retrieved from Medline, EMBASE, Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO Trials. ELIGIBILITY: Studies were included if they compared dexmedetomidine sedation with propofol in the ICU, reported the incidence of delirium as an outcome and had a mean/median sample age of at least 60. Studies that examined dexmedetomidine and propofol use intra-operatively or as part of general anaesthesia were excluded. RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine sedation was associated with a lower incidence of delirium when compared with propofol: seven studies, n=1249; risk ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.95; P = 0.02. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of bradycardia: three studies, n=278; risk ratio 1.52; 95% CI 0.85 to 2.72; P = 0.16, and hypotension: six studies, n=867 patients; risk ratio 1.12; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.45; P = 0.42. Dexmedetomidine sedation did not reduce hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay or duration of mechanical ventilation compared with propofol. CONCLUSION: Compared with propofol, dexmedetomidine sedation in the ICU is associated with lower delirium incidence among older adults with no significant increase in adverse events. In older adult ICU patients at risk of developing delirium, sedation with dexmedetomidine should be considered. Further research is warranted to elucidate and explain the mechanisms underlying this process, and to confirm our findings with large, multicentre trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018099339).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations80
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207