MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404033758 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000039669

Application of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol–etomidate mixture in radical gastrectomy under general anesthesia

2024· article· en· W4404033758 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ji Liu, Jinqiu Yang, Xiyang Yang, Guangfen Yin, Tao Li, Ruoyu Li, Wang Ai

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePropofolDexmedetomidineEtomidateAnesthesiaRemifentanilBispectral indexIntraoperative AwarenessRocuroniumGastrectomyPostoperative cognitive dysfunctionSurgerySedationCancerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is the third most common malignant tumor with the second highest mortality rate in the world, and radical gastrectomy is the main treatment method, but the operation needs a long period of time to carry out and has strong surgical trauma stimulation, which is likely to cause sympathetic nerve excitement and stress reaction in the body. Therefore, the selection of appropriate anesthetic medication regimen and anesthesia method has an important impact on the intraoperative management and postoperative recovery of patients. This study aims to compare the clinical effects of dexmedetomidine alone in combination with propofol, etomidate and propofol-etomidate mixture in the treatment of radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS: A total of 90 patients undergoing elective radical gastrectomy were randomly divided into the propofol group (group P), the etomidate group (group E), and the etomidate-propofol mixture group (group PE). Anesthesia induction was performed under the monitoring of bispectral index anesthesia depth. The same pumping drugs were used in 3 groups: 0.1 to 0.3 μg/kg·min remifentanil, 0.5 μg/kg·h dexmedetomidine, and 5 to 10 μg/kg·min rocuronium. The primary outcome indicator was the hemodynamic conditions. The secondary outcome indicators included awakening time and time to accurately answer questions after operation, the prevalence of postoperative respiratory depression and adverse events, the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction, and preoperative and postoperative Montreal Cognitive Assessment and Mini-Mental State Examination scores. RESULTS: Among the 3 groups of patients, the use rate of vasoactive drugs in group P was higher (P < .05); the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate of group P at T1 to T4 were significantly lower than those of groups E and PE (P < .05); the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate of group E in T2, T4, and T6 were significantly higher than those of groups P and PE (P < .05). The wake-up time after operation and the time to accurately answer the questions were longer in group E than in groups P and PE (P < .05). The incidence of postoperative respiratory depression in group P was higher than that in groups E and PE (P < .05). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment score of group P was lower than that of groups E and PE 7 days after operation (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine combined with propofol-etomidate mixture is a better anesthesia drug combination.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune ResponseFrench-language works237,207