How should dexmedetomidine and clonidine be prescribed in the critical care setting?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiac, ventilatory and kidney management in the critical care setting has been optimized over the past decades. Cognition and sedation represent one of the last remaning challenges. As conventional sedation is suboptimal and as the sedation evoked by alpha-2 adrenergic agonists ("cooperative" sedation with dexmedetomidine, clonidine or guanfacine) represents a valuable alternative, this manuscript covers three practical topics for which evidence-based medicine is lacking: a) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation ("switching"): the short answer is the abrupt withdrawal of conventional sedation, immediate implementation of alpha-2 agonist infusion and the use of "rescue sedation" (midazolam bolus[es]) or "breakthrough sedation" (haloperidol bolus[es]) to stabilize cooperative sedation. b) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation in unstable patients (e.g., refractory delirium tremens, septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, etc.): to avoid hypotension and bradycardia evoked by sympathetic deactivation, the short answer is to maintain the stroke volume through volume loading, vasopressors and inotropes. c) To avoid these switches and associated difficulties, alpha-2 agonists may be considered first-line sedatives. The short answer is to administer alpha-2 agonists slowly from admission or endotracheal intubation up to stabilized cooperative sedation. The "take home" message is as follows: a) alpha-2 agonists are jointly sympathetic deactivators and sedative agents; b) sympathetic deactivation implies maintaining the stroke volume and iterative assessment of volemia. Evidence-based medicine should document our propositions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".