MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110024302 · doi:10.1097/cce.0000000000000281

Use of Inhaled Volatile Anesthetics for Longer Term Critical Care Sedation: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3110024302 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Explorations · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchUniversity of OttawaSt. Michael's HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkHealth Sciences CentreSinai Health SystemSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialPropofolMidazolamSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Assess feasibility, barriers to recruitment, and safety of volatile-based sedation in longer term sedation patients in North American ICUs with limited or no experience with volatile sedation. Design: Open-label, pilot randomized clinical trial performed between October 2013 and September 2018. Setting: Four Canadian ICUs across two academic tertiary and quaternary hospitals. Patients: Sixty adults anticipated needing sedation and invasive ventilation beyond 48 hours with tidal volumes greater than 350 mL, expected 6-month mortality risk less than 50%, no evidence of high intracranial pressure, or drug contraindications (malignant hyperthermia, allergy). Interventions: 2:1 randomization to inhaled volatile sedation using isoflurane or standard midazolam and/or propofol IV sedation. Measurement and Main Results: Primary outcome of safety and feasibility was assessed by staff satisfaction scores using a five-point Likert scale and serum fluoride measurements. Secondary clinical outcomes included time to extubation, quality of sedation, opioid use, cardiorespiratory parameters, vasopressor and antipsychotic drug use, and 3-month cognitive outcome measured using telephone interview for cognitive status. From 2,210 screened patients, 308 met eligibility criteria secondary to many not requiring sedation, extubation planned within 48 hours, high risk of death, or low tidal ventilation. Of 308 patients, 60 were randomized to isoflurane ( n = 41) or IV ( n = 19) sedation secondary to lack of substitute decision-maker or physician consent. Duration of inhaled isoflurane and IV sedation were median of 114 and 88 hours, respectively. Nine isoflurane patients crossed into the IV arm secondary to mainly hypercarbia from low tidal ventilation. Nursing and respiratory therapy staff satisfaction scores were quantitatively similar between both sedation approaches. Serum fluoride levels rose with duration of isoflurane sedation but were not associated with altered kidney function. There were no significant differences in secondary clinical outcomes. Conclusions: We showed adequate preliminary safety and acceptability of inhaled volatile anesthetics for long-term sedation.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-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 score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.252 · 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