MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6921194349 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4142225

Dexmedetomidine and intravenous acetaminophen for the prevention of postoperative delirium following cardiac surgery (DEXACET trial): protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial

2018· other· en· W6921194349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDexmedetomidinePropofolSedationRandomized controlled trialDeliriumCardiac surgeryAcetaminophenIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Postoperative delirium is common in elderly cardiac surgery patients. It is multifactorial and is influenced by the patientâ s baseline status and the nature of the medical and surgical interventions that the patient receives. Some of these factors are potentially modifiable, including postoperative sedation and analgesia protocols. This study has been designed to evaluate the effectiveness of postoperative intravenous acetaminophen in conjunction with either dexmedetomidine or propofol in decreasing the incidence of delirium. Methods This is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, factorial trial that includes patients who are at least 60Â years old and who are undergoing cardiac surgeries involving cardiopulmonary bypass, including coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and combined CABG/valve surgeries. Patients are randomly assigned to receive one of four postoperative analgesic-sedation regimens: (1) acetaminophen and dexmedetomidine, (2) acetaminophen and propofol, (3) dexmedetomidine and placebo, or (4) propofol and placebo. The primary outcome, incidence of delirium, will be assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM or CAM-ICU). The secondary outcome, postoperative cognitive decline, will be assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Additional secondary outcomes, including duration of delirium, postoperative analgesic requirement, length of stay, and incidence of adverse events, will also be reported. Data will be analyzed in 120 randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study medication(s) on a modified intention-to-treat basis. Discussion This study has been approved by the institutional review board at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and the trial is currently recruiting. This study will systematically examine the implications of modification in postoperative sedative/analgesic protocols after cardiac surgery, specifically for short- and long-term cognitive outcomes. Any positive outcomes from this study could direct simple yet effective practice changes aimed to reduce morbidity. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02546765 , registered January 13, 2015.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.007

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→French-language works237,207→