Comparison the Cerebroprotective Effect of Sevoflurane and Propofol in Patients with Carotid Artery Stenosis Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Randomized Clinical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The Objective of the study was to evaluate the perioperative cerebral protective effect of sevoflurane and propofol in patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Materials and Methods: A randomized clinical study included 200 patients with preoperative carotid artery stenosis <50% scheduled for cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The patients were classified into 2 groups (each=100), Sevoflurane group: The patients received sevoflurane (concentration 1% to 4%) as an inhalational agent. Propofol group: The patients received propofol infusion (4-6 mg/kg/hr). The sevoflurane and propofol were given during the whole procedure (before, during, and after cardiopulmonary bypass). The monitors included heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), central venous pressure and cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction and stroke. Results: There was no significant difference in the perioperative heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, central venous pressure, and the right or left regional cerebral oxygen saturation between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of postoperative neurological complication was significantly lower with sevoflurane than propofol (P=0.012). The incidence of delirium was significantly lower with sevoflurane than propofol (P=0.023). The incidence of stroke was lower with sevoflurane than propofol, but the difference was insignificant (P=0.682). The ICU and hospital length of stay were shorter with sevoflurane than propofol (P=0.013, P=0.033 respectively). Conclusions: The sevoflurane was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction than propofol in patients with carotid artery stenosis undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".