Dexmedetomidine might improve postoperative cognitive dysfunction in older patients undergoing pulmonary surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The effect of dexmedetomidine on cognitive function after various surgeries were reported, however no consensus is made on pulmonary surgery. In this study we aimed at investigating the effect of dexmedetomidine anesthesia on postoperative cognitive function (POCD) in pulmonary surgery. Methods A prospective randomized placebo-controlled study was conducted with blinded to patients. The study was performed on 60 patients (29 in the dexmedetomidine group; 31 in the placebo group). Dexmedetomidine-group patients received dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg, i.v.) and Placebo-group patients received an equal volume of physiologic (0.9%) saline for 20 min before anesthesia induction. Cognitive function was evaluated using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) 1 day before surgery, as well as on postoperative day (POD)1, POD3 and POD7. The regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rSO 2 ) was monitored continuously by near-infrared spectroscopy before anesthesia. Results The MoCA score between the two groups was significantly different on POD1 (Dex 26.4 ± 0.73 vs Placebo 25.5 ± 0.96, p < 0.001) and POD3 (Dex 27.1 ± 0.79 vs Placebo 26.6 ± 0.80, p = 0.032). In detail, attention and orientation scores were increased in the dexmedetomidine group on POD1 and POD3. The rSO 2 between the dexmedetomidine group or placebo group was not significantly different (Dex 64.9 ± 2.73 vs . Placebo 64.3 ± 3.29, p = 0.483), and no significant difference was found before drug administration and after regaining consciousness (Dex 63.5 ± 2.52 vs . Placebo 64.2 ± 3.22; p = 0.390). Conclusion We showed, for the first time, that dexmedetomidine (1.0 µg/kg) could reduce the risk of POCD and might not decrease rSO 2 . Hence, dexmedetomidine could be employed in pulmonary surgical procedures, especially for older patients facing high risk of delirium.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".