MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

966: ANALGOSEDATIVE DRUG USE IN BURN ICU PATIENTS AFTER INITIATION OF INHALED VOLATILE-BASED SEDATION

2023· article· en· W4389743100 on OpenAlexaff
Byron Koitsopoulos, Brian H. Cuthbertson, Martin Chapman, Nicole K. McKinnon, Marat Slessarev, Rishi Ganesan, Alan D. Rogers, Eily Shaw, Julie Nardi, Julia Zampieron, Angela Jerath

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenHealth Sciences CentreWestern UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSedationAnesthesiaDrugIntensive care medicineEmergency medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction/Hypothesis: Sedation care in burns patients is complex and often necessitates the use of several intravenous sedatives at high doses. Sedative drug polypharmacy is associated with negative patient and health system outcomes like delirium and long ICU stays. Volatile anesthetic based sedation was introduced as part of a new care pathway in burns patients during the SAVE ICU trial (CTN: NCT04415060). We aimed to evaluate the impact of inhaled anesthetics on sedation polypharmacy in ventilated burns patients. Methods: Ethics approved retrospective study of adult burns patients admitted to the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center Ross Tilley Burns ICU between Jan 2021-May 2023. Patients on mechanical ventilation who received inhaled isoflurane were included. The primary outcome was a reduction in intravenous (IV) sedative use after commencing isoflurane. Daily drug dosing information for each patient was collected over 6 days of their ICU stay, beginning on the day prior to receiving isoflurane (day 0). Additional data extracted for analysis included patient demographics, comorbidities, burn severity, duration of hospital stay/ICU stay/ventilation and major ICU morbidities/mortality. Data was summarized using median (interquartile range, IQR) and frequency (%) for continuous and categorical variables. Results: 28 patients were included with a median age of 36y, females 36%, 28% mean total burn surface area. Prior substance (54%) and alcohol misuse (36%) was high. Median ICU stay was 31 days with a median ventilation duration of 599h. Prior to commencing isoflurane, the proportion of patients (median, IQR daily dose) on propofol was 48% (0, 0-1365mg), midazolam 88% (31, 4.5-61 mg), ketamine 92% (1610, 849.6-2312.4 mg), opioid 100% (morphine equivalents 263, 220-363.5 mg). Isoflurane use rose from 41 to 106 ml/day over 5 days. After starting isoflurane, the dose and proportion of patients on IV sedatives fell. On day 5, midazolam was used in 37% of patients (0, 0-3mg), ketamine 48% (0, 0-1118.4mg), propofol 0%. IV opioid dose fell by 18% by Day 5. Conclusions: Preliminary data shows that inhaled isoflurane can reduce sedative drug polypharmacy in burns patients. Further study is needed to evaluate whether this benefit translates into better patient outcomes.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicRespiratory Support and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→