MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018614777 · doi:10.1097/aln.0000000000003328

Electroencephalogram Burst-suppression during Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Elderly Patients Mediates Postoperative Delirium

2020· letter· en· W3018614777 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juan C. Pedemonte, George S. Plummer, Shubham Chamadia, Joseph J. Locascio, Eunice Hahm, Breanna R. Ethridge, Jacob Gitlin, Reine Ibala, Jennifer Mekonnen, Katia M. Colon, M. Brandon Westover, David A. D’Alessandro, George Tolis, Timothy T. Houle, Kenneth Shelton, Jason Zhensheng Qu, Oluwaseun Akeju

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthPontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioDeliriumBurst suppressionAnesthesiaCardiopulmonary bypassUnivariate analysisIntensive care unitInternal medicineMultivariate analysisIntensive care medicineElectroencephalographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative burst-suppression is associated with postoperative delirium. Whether this association is causal remains unclear. Therefore, the authors investigated whether burst-suppression during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) mediates the effects of known delirium risk factors on postoperative delirium. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort observational substudy of the Minimizing ICU [intensive care unit] Neurological Dysfunction with Dexmedetomidine-induced Sleep (MINDDS) trial. The authors analyzed data from patients more than 60 yr old undergoing cardiac surgery (n = 159). Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess for associations and enable causal inference. Delirium risk factors were evaluated using the abbreviated Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System questionnaires for applied cognition, physical function, global health, sleep, and pain. The authors also analyzed electroencephalogram data (n = 141). RESULTS: The incidence of delirium in patients with CPB burst-suppression was 25% (15 of 60) compared with 6% (5 of 81) in patients without CPB burst-suppression. In univariate analyses, age (odds ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.14]; P = 0.002), lowest CPB temperature (odds ratio, 0.79 [0.66 to 0.94]; P = 0.010), alpha power (odds ratio, 0.65 [0.54 to 0.80]; P < 0.001), and physical function (odds ratio, 0.95 [0.91 to 0.98]; P = 0.007) were associated with CPB burst-suppression. In separate univariate analyses, age (odds ratio, 1.09 [1.02 to 1.16]; P = 0.009), abbreviated Montreal Cognitive Assessment (odds ratio, 0.80 [0.66 to 0.97]; P = 0.024), alpha power (odds ratio, 0.75 [0.59 to 0.96]; P = 0.025), and CPB burst-suppression (odds ratio, 3.79 [1.5 to 9.6]; P = 0.005) were associated with delirium. However, only physical function (odds ratio, 0.96 [0.91 to 0.99]; P = 0.044), lowest CPB temperature (odds ratio, 0.73 [0.58 to 0.88]; P = 0.003), and electroencephalogram alpha power (odds ratio, 0.61 [0.47 to 0.76]; P < 0.001) were retained as predictors in the burst-suppression multivariable model. Burst-suppression (odds ratio, 4.1 [1.5 to 13.7]; P = 0.012) and age (odds ratio, 1.07 [0.99 to 1.15]; P = 0.090) were retained as predictors in the delirium multivariable model. Delirium was associated with decreased electroencephalogram power from 6.8 to 24.4 Hertz. CONCLUSIONS: The inference from the present study is that CPB burst-suppression mediates the effects of physical function, lowest CPB temperature, and electroencephalogram alpha power on delirium.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations101
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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