MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174838477 · doi:10.14740/jocmr4441

Use of Preoperative Single Dose Ivabradine for Perioperative Hemodynamic Stabilization During Non-Cardiac Elective Surgery Under General Anaesthesia: A Pilot Study

2021· article· en· W3174838477 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anwesha Banerjee, Sangamitra Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart rate and cardiovascular health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeIvabradineAnesthesiaHemodynamicsGeneral anaesthesiaCardiac surgeryElective surgerySurgeryHeart rateBlood pressureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Peri-anesthetic hemodynamic fluctuations during non-cardiac surgeries are sometimes of serious consequences and associated with increased morbidity and mortality, especially in undiagnosed vulnerable patients. Currently used drugs like β-blocker, α2 agonist or sedative analgesic have their own limitations like combined negative ionotropic and chronotropic action, and unwanted bradycardia associated with hypotension, respectively. In this context, ivabradine has been used extensively in cases of cardiac failure, myocardial ischemia and cardiomyopathies for its funny channel associated dependable heart rate reducing property. Hence, for the first time, in search of a better agent for perioperative hemodynamic stabilization, the present study evaluated the role of ivabradine in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgeries. METHODS: This was a prospective, observer blind, randomized, interventional pilot study, conducted among 50 patients belonging undergoing elective abdominal laparoscopic surgeries, under general anesthesia. The study group patients received ivabradine tablet 7.5 mg, 2 h before scheduled time of surgery with a sip of water. All the patients received standardized balanced general anesthesia as practiced in our institute with all standard monitoring with additional minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) monitoring to ensure an adequate depth of anesthesia, and neuromuscular monitoring to ensure adequate and standard muscle relaxation. Hemodynamic stability of the groups was tested by comparing them at time points like induction, incision and operation, and extubation. Mean values of heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were compared between groups, and also for variation with lapse of time, using RMANOVA analysis, using baseline parameters as covariate so as to standardize them. RESULTS: On multivariate analysis using Wilk's lambda multivariate test, there was a statistically significant difference (F = 3.587, P = 0.036) in HR between the groups with time, while no significant difference of SBP, DBP and MAP between the groups with time. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed a significant attenuation of HR response to stressful events like laryngoscopy, intubation and surgical incision with ivabradine. Also, a good intraoperative protection against cardiovascular ischemic and arrhythmic episodes in perioperative period was achieved with this drug ivabradine.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.388
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.125 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicHeart rate and cardiovascular healthFrench-language works237,207