MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393369518

Injection of Bupivacaine into the Pleural and Mediastinal Drains: A Novel Approach for Decreasing Incident Pain After Cardiac Surgery – Montreal Heart Institute Experience

2020· article· en· W4393369518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer Cogan, M André, Gabrielle Ariano-Lortie, Andrea Nozza, Michal Weisman Raymond, Antoine Rochon, Grisell Vargas-Shaffer

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBupivacaineMedicineAnesthesiaCardiac surgeryChest painSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jennifer Cogan,1 Maud André,2 Gabrielle Ariano-Lortie,2 Anna Nozza,3 Meggie Raymond,1 Antoine Rochon,1 Grisell Vargas-Shaffer4 1Department of Anesthesiology, Montreal Heart Institute, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H1T 1C8, Canada; 2Department of Nursing, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC H1T 1C8, Canada; 3Montreal Health Innovations Coordinating Center, Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, QC H1Y 3N1, Canada; 4Department of Anesthesiology, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H2X 3E4, CanadaCorrespondence: Jennifer CoganMontreal Heart Institute, 5000 Belanger, Montreal, Quebec H1T 1C8, CanadaTel +1 514-376-3330Fax +1 514-376-8784Email cogan.jennifer@me.comBackground: We conducted a chart review of prospectively collected data in order to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of an innovative technique of pleural and mediastinal drain injections.Methods: Patients who had undergone cardiac surgery and who continued to have pain despite the use of a multimodal pain protocol received injections of 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine in pleural and/or mediastinal chest drainage tubes.Results: Patients were evaluated for the incidence mediastinitis, osteitis, and deep sternal wound infection as well as the speed and intensity of pain relief. The odds ratio of infection in the infused group was 0.955 (CI = 0.4705, 1.9384). The adjusted mean “decrease in pain” was 4.01 (SEM = 0.15 and 95% CI = 3.78, 4.38), using the 11-point Likert Numerical Rating Scale. The mean adjusted “time to maximum pain relief” was 8.33 minutes (SEM = 0.42 and 95% CI = 7.50, 9.15).Conclusion: This technique is a powerful, safe, and efficient tool in the armamentarium of pain management and its growing use within our institution has provided a substantial benefit in the treatment of early post-operative pain.Keywords: acute pain service, bupivacaine, cardiac surgery, pain management, pleural drain, safety considerations

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.472
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 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicAnesthesia and Pain Management→French-language works237,207→