Midazolam and dexmedetomidine sedation impair systolic heart function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedation is an essential part of clinical practice. Despite this fact, we still lack data describing the exact impact of sedation on heart function. PURPOSE: To compare the changes in heart function, induced after sedation with either midazolam or dexmedetomidine, using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: A total number of 30 volunteers were randomized into two groups: 15 participants in the midazolam group (MID) and 15 participants in the dexmedetomidine group (DEX). Every participant underwent a one-session cardiac MRI before and after sedation onset. The following parameters were recorded: left and right ventricle stroke volume (Ao-vol and Pul-vol resp.) and maximum flow velocity through the mitral valve during early (E-diast) and late diastole (L-diast). A monitor recorded values of mean blood pressure (MAP), pulse (P) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) in 5-minute intervals. RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine led to a statistically significant decrease in Ao-vol (p = 0.006) and Pul-vol (p = 0.003), while midazolam decreased E-diast (p = 0.019) Ao-vol (p = 0.001) and Pul-vol (p = 0.01). The late diastolic filling was not influenced by the sedation technique. CONCLUSION: Both sedation regimens worsened the systolic function of both ventricles. Midazolam moreover attenuated early diastolic filling of the left ventricle (Tab. 3, Fig. 4, Ref. 19).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".