MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399491519 · doi:10.1001/jama.2024.8144

Electroencephalography-Guided Anesthesia and Delirium in Older Adults After Cardiac Surgery

2024· article· en· W4399491519 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alain Deschamps, Arbi Ben Abdallah, Eric Jacobsohn, Tarit Saha, George Djaiani, Renée El-Gabalawy, Charles Overbeek, Jennifer Palermo, Athanase Courbe, Isabelle Cloutier, Robert Tanzola, Alex Kronzer, Bradley A. Fritz, Eva M. Schmitt, Sharon K. Inouye, Michael S. Avidan, André Denault, C. David Mazer, Alexis F. Turgeon, François Martin Carrier, Deschamps Alain, Scott Beattie, Hilary P. Grocott, Richard Hall, Gregory M. T. Hare, Manoj M. Lalu, Philip M. Jones, Gregory L. Bryson, Jessica Spence, Summer Syed, Diem Tran, Yoan Lamarche

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityUniversity of ManitobaUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNational Institute on AgingInstitut de Cardiologie de MontréalUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
KeywordsMedicineDeliriumElectroencephalographyAnesthesiaCardiac surgeryEmergence deliriumIntensive care medicinePsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Intraoperative electroencephalogram (EEG) waveform suppression, suggesting excessive general anesthesia, has been associated with postoperative delirium. Objective: To assess whether EEG-guided anesthesia decreases the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, parallel-group clinical trial of 1140 adults 60 years or older undergoing cardiac surgery at 4 Canadian hospitals. Recruitment was from December 2016 to February 2022, with follow-up until February 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio (stratified by hospital) to receive EEG-guided anesthesia (n = 567) or usual care (n = 573). Patients and those assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was delirium during postoperative days 1 through 5. Intraoperative measures included anesthetic concentration and EEG suppression time. Secondary outcomes included intensive care and hospital length of stay. Serious adverse events included intraoperative awareness, medical complications, and 30-day mortality. Results: Of 1140 randomized patients (median [IQR] age, 70 [65-75] years; 282 [24.7%] women), 1131 (99.2%) were assessed for the primary outcome. Delirium during postoperative days 1 to 5 occurred in 102 of 562 patients (18.15%) in the EEG-guided group and 103 of 569 patients (18.10%) in the usual care group (difference, 0.05% [95% CI, -4.57% to 4.67%]). In the EEG-guided group compared with the usual care group, the median volatile anesthetic minimum alveolar concentration was 0.14 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.13) lower (0.66 vs 0.80) and there was a 7.7-minute (95% CI, 10.6 to 4.7) decrease in the median total time spent with EEG suppression (4.0 vs 11.7 min). There were no significant differences between groups in median length of intensive care unit (difference, 0 days [95% CI, -0.31 to 0.31]) or hospital stay (difference, 0 days [95% CI, -0.94 to 0.94]). No patients reported intraoperative awareness. Medical complications occurred in 64 of 567 patients (11.3%) in the EEG-guided group and 73 of 573 (12.7%) in the usual care group. Thirty-day mortality occurred in 8 of 567 patients (1.4%) in the EEG-guided group and 13 of 573 (2.3%) in the usual care group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among older adults undergoing cardiac surgery, EEG-guided anesthetic administration to minimize EEG suppression, compared with usual care, did not decrease the incidence of postoperative delirium. This finding does not support EEG-guided anesthesia for this indication. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02692300.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations74
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207