MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401934323 · doi:10.1111/pan.14987

Anesthetic‐sparing effect of dexmedetomidine during total intravenous anesthesia for children undergoing dental surgery: A randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4401934323 on OpenAlexaff
Victor C. L. Lee, R. L. Ridgway, Nicholas West, Matthias Görges, Simon D. Whyte

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Sedative Agents
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDexmedetomidineMedicinePropofolAnesthesiaRemifentanilSedationBispectral indexPlaceboBolus (digestion)Interquartile rangeSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: -adrenergic agonist, reduces propofol and remifentanil requirements when used as an adjunct to total intravenous anesthesia in adults, but studies in a pediatric population are sparse. This study investigates the magnitude of dose-sparing effects of a postinduction dexmedetomidine bolus on propofol and remifentanil requirements during pediatric surgery. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, children aged 2-10 years undergoing elective dental surgery were assigned to one of four groups: placebo, 0.25 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine, 0.5 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine, and 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine. Maintenance with fixed-ratio propofol and remifentanil total intravenous anesthesia followed a bispectral index (BIS)-guided algorithm designed to maintain a stable depth of anesthesia. The primary outcomes were time-averaged maintenance infusion rates of propofol and remifentanil. Secondary outcomes in the postanesthetic care unit included sedation scores, pain scores, and time to discharge. RESULTS: Data from 67 patients were available for analysis. The median [interquartile range] propofol infusion rate was lower in the 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine group (180 [164-185] mcg/kg/min) versus placebo (200 [178-220] mcg/kg/min): percent change -10.0%; 95% CI -2.4 to -19.8; p = 0.013. The remifentanil infusion rate was also lower in the 1 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine group (0.089 [0.080, 0.095] mcg/kg/min) versus placebo (0.103 [0.095, 0.106] mcg/kg/min): percent change, -13.7%; 95% CI -5.47 to -21.0; p = .022. However, neither propofol nor remifentanil infusion rates were significantly different in the 0.25 or 0.5 mcg/kg dexmedetomidine groups. In the postanesthesia care unit, there were no differences in pain or sedation scores, and time to discharge was not significantly prolonged in any dexmedetomidine group. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg reduced the propofol and remifentanil requirements during maintenance of anesthesia in children when administered as a postinduction bolus. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03422978, date of registration 2018-02-06.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsFrench-language works237,207