Hemodynamic effects of target-controlled infusion of propofol alone or in combination with a constant-rate infusion of remifentanil in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2015, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. All rights reserved.The objective of this study was to evaluate the hemodynamic effects of target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol alone or in combination with a constant-rate infusion (CRI) of remifentanil. Six adult dogs were given 2 treatments in a randomized crossover study with a 7-day interval between treatments. Treatment 1 was propofol (P) and treatment 2 was propofol and remifentanil (P-Rem), without any premedication. Propofol was induced using a TCI system with a predicted plasma concentration (Cp) of 6.0 mg/mL. Anesthesia was maintained within the Cp range (0.65 to 3.0 mg/mL) for 120 min and remifentanil was administered at a rate of 0.3 mg/kg body weight (BW) per minute, CRI. Cardiopulmonary variables were recorded before (baseline), during, and 120 min after drug administration. Heart rate (HR) decreased significantly in the P-Rem group (46%) compared with baseline values. In the P-Rem group, the cardiac index (CI) decreased significantly (49% to 58%) and the stroke volume (SV) decreased compared with baseline values. The systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) increased significantly in the P-Rem group compared with baseline values. There was no difference in mean arterial pressure (MAP) between the groups. Central venous pressure (CVP) and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP) significantly increased in the P-Rem group compared with baseline values. In conclusion, the hemodynamic changes observed in this study indicate a compromise of the cardiovascular system, although the dogs in this study were healthy/euvolemic and there was no change in preload. More studies are required in order to evaluate the actual safety of the combination of propofol and remifentanil in patients with reduced cardiac reserve.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".