MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312130627 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101796

Nighttime dexmedetomidine for delirium prevention in non-mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery (MINDDS): a single-centre, parallel-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled superiority trial

2022· article· en· W4312130627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason Zhensheng Qu, Ariel Mueller, Tina B. McKay, M. Brandon Westover, Kenneth Shelton, Shahzad Shaefi, David A. D’Alessandro, Lorenzo Berra, Emery N. Brown, Timothy T. Houle, Oluwaseun Akeju

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthMasimoGeorge Mason University
KeywordsDexmedetomidineMedicineDeliriumPlaceboAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialIncidence (geometry)Clinical endpointSurgerySedationIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The delirium-sparing effect of nighttime dexmedetomidine has not been studied after surgery. We hypothesised that a nighttime dose of dexmedetomidine would reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium as compared to placebo. Methods: This single-centre, parallel-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled superiority trial evaluated whether a short nighttime dose of intravenous dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg over 40 min) would reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium in patients 60 years of age or older undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were randomised to receive dexmedetomidine or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was delirium on postoperative day one. Secondary outcomes included delirium within three days of surgery, 30-, 90-, and 180-day abbreviated Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, Patient Reported Outcome Measures Information System quality of life scores, and all-cause mortality. The study was registered as NCT02856594 on ClinicalTrials.gov on August 5, 2016, before the enrolment of any participants. Findings: Of 469 patients that underwent randomisation to placebo (n = 235) or dexmedetomidine (n = 234), 75 met a prespecified drop criterion before the study intervention. Thus, 394 participants (188 dexmedetomidine; 206 placebo) were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat cohort (median age 69 [IQR 64, 74] years; 73.1% male [n = 288]; 26·9% female [n = 106]). Postoperative delirium status on day one was missing for 30 (7.6%) patients. Among those in whom it could be assessed, the primary outcome occurred in 5 of 175 patients (2.9%) in the dexmedetomidine group and 16 of 189 patients (8.5%) in the placebo group (OR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.10-0.83; P = 0.029). A non-significant but higher proportion of participants experienced delirium within three days postoperatively in the placebo group (25/177; 14.1%) compared to the dexmedetomidine group (14/160; 8.8%; OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.28-1.15). No significant differences between groups were observed in secondary outcomes or safety. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that in elderly cardiac surgery patients with a low baseline risk of postoperative delirium and extubated within 12 h of ICU admission, a short nighttime dose of dexmedetomidine decreased the incidence of delirium on postoperative day one. Although non-statistically significant, our findings also suggested a clinical meaningful difference in the three-day incidence of postoperative delirium. Funding: National Institute on Aging (R01AG053582).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations64
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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