Orogastric Tube Use in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery, A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This pilot study investigated the potential impact of using orogastric tube (OGT) on the immediate post- operative outcomes in adult patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft procedures. DESIGN: A prospective non-blinded randomised study. SETTING: At a single University Hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-eight consecutive adult patients that underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery were included. INTERVENTIONS: Thirty-nine patients received an OGT, and thirty-nine patients did not (control group). MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes included: the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, opiate use for pain, prolonged ventilation, and gastric dilatation on x-ray. Secondary outcomes included: the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events, major respiratory, gastrointestinal, and renal complications, and total hospital length of stay. MAIN RESULTS: There were non-significant trends towards higher incidence of post-operative nausea (n=2/39; 5.1%; p=0.156) and vomiting (n=1/39; 2.6%, p=0.314) in the OGT group compared to the non-OGT group (n = 0). There was a significant increase in opiates use for pain in the OGT group (n = 13/39; 33.3%) compared to the non-OGT group (n = 3/39, 7.7%) (p=0.0054), indicating that OGT may contribute to the development of postoperative pain or discomfort. There was no difference in the incidence of major postoperative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, the use of OGT did not impact the immediate postoperative outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery. However, it was significantly associated with higher use of opiates in these patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".