MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375955658 · doi:10.2196/38487

Effect of the Red Bull Energy Drink on Perfusion-Related Variables in Women Undergoing Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction: Protocol and Analysis Plan for a Prospective, Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

2023· article· en· W4375955658 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicole E. Speck, Michał Michalak, Kathrin Dreier, Doris Babst, Alessia M. Lardi, Jian Farhadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureRandomized controlled trialBreast reconstructionAnesthesiaProspective cohort studySurgeryHeart rateBreast cancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Maintaining a sufficiently high systolic blood pressure is essential for free flap perfusion after microsurgical breast reconstruction. Yet, many women undergoing these procedures have low postoperative systolic blood pressure. Intravenous volume administration or vasopressors may be needed to maintain systolic blood pressure above a predefined threshold. However, excessive volume administration may lead to volume overload and flap stasis, and the postoperative use of vasopressors may be limited depending on institutional standards. Additional nonpharmacological measures to raise blood pressure might be beneficial. Evidence suggests that the Red Bull energy drink could raise blood pressure. It has been shown to increase systolic and diastolic blood pressure in healthy volunteers and athletes. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to determine the difference in systolic blood pressure between an intervention group receiving Red Bull and a control group receiving still water after microsurgical breast reconstruction. Secondary objectives include postoperative heart rate, 24-hour fluid balance, pain level, or necessity for revision surgery due to flap complications. METHODS: The Red Bull study is a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the effect of postoperative ingestion of Red Bull energy drink against still water in female patients undergoing unilateral microsurgical breast reconstruction. A total of 250 mL of Red Bull (intervention group) or 250 mL of still water (control group) will be administered to the study participants 2 hours postoperatively as well as for breakfast and lunch on postoperative day 1, amounting to a total volume of 750 mL per 24 hours. Female patients between 18 and 70 years of age undergoing unilateral microsurgical breast reconstruction will be included. Exclusion criteria are a history of arterial hypertension, cardiac rhythm disorder, diabetes mellitus, gastric or duodenal ulcer, thyroid disease, and current use of antihypertensive or antiarrhythmic drugs or thyroid hormones, as well as intolerance to Red Bull. RESULTS: Recruitment for the study started in June 2020 and was completed in December 2022. There is evidence that the Red Bull energy drink increases blood pressure in healthy volunteers and athletes. We hypothesize that postoperative ingestion of Red Bull will increase systolic blood pressure in women after microsurgical breast reconstruction. Red Bull could hence be used as a nonpharmacological adjunct to vasopressors or volume administration in women with hypotensive blood pressure after microsurgical breast reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: This paper describes the Red Bull study trial protocol and analysis plan. The information will increase the transparency of the data analysis for the Red Bull study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04397419; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04397419. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38487.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.376 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207