MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

964: INTERNATIONAL STUDY OF OPIOID AND SEDATIVE USE IN PATIENTS WITH ARDS OR COVID-19

2023· article· en· W4389743353 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott Bolesta, Marc M. Perreault, Céline Gélinas, Kathryn Smith, Jaycee Blair, Kelcie Mochany, Nash Wenner, Lisa Burry

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineARDSCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSedativeOpioidSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PandemicPsychoanalysisAnesthesiaVirologyInternal medicineLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 present with an ARDS-like syndrome and may require higher doses of analgesics and sedatives than most other mechanically ventilated (MV) ICU patients. This study aimed to determine the analgesia and sedation requirements of MV patients with ARDS or COVID-19. We hypothesized that requirements are similar between MV patients with ARDS and those with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted an international, retrospective cohort study of MV adults (≥ 18 years) diagnosed with ARDS after Jan 1, 2019, and those positive for SARS-CoV-2 after Jan 1, 2021. Each site contributed at least 5 patients to each group. The primary outcome was the difference in cumulative analgesic and sedative doses 72-hr after initiation of MV between groups. Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.0.0 (Armonk, New York) according to the level of measurement, data distribution, and assumptions. The a priori alpha was 5%. Results: There were 152 patients enrolled with ARDS and 160 with COVID-19 from 25 hospitals; 195 patients from the United States, 67 from Canada, 41 from Saudi Arabia, and 9 from Argentina. Patients with COVID-19 were older (mean 55±15 vs 64±13 years; p< 0.001) and weighed more (mean 82±23 vs 93±24 kg; p< 0.001). Median ICU stay was similar for both groups [ARDS, 12 (IQR, 7-25) vs COVID-19, 16 (IQR, 9-24); p=0.102]. PaO2/FiO2 ratio, maximum FiO2, and PEEP did not differ significantly between groups in the first 72-hr of MV. There was no difference in type of opioid or sedative agents used between groups. Median total fentanyl [2400 (IQR, 1253-3638) vs 3450 (IQR, 1725-4800) mcg; p=0.009] and ketamine [144 (IQR, 80-353) vs 669 (IQR, 385-4415) mg; p=0.041], and mean total lorazepam (3.7±2.4 vs 12±0 mg; p=0.024), doses were higher for patients with COVID-19 on day 3 of MV, but did not for other agents. There were no group differences in opioid or sedative weaning process or protocol use, weaning initiation time, dose increases, or use of adjuvant agents or iatrogenic withdrawal protocols. Conclusions: Total opioid and sedative doses are similar on day 3 of MV for adult ICU patients with ARDS or COVID-19, but total fentanyl, ketamine and lorazepam doses were higher for patients with COVID-19.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care Medicine→Same topicPediatric Pain Management Techniques→French-language works237,207→