Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25868775›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2006

Propofol infusion syndrome.

Michael Philip Burke, Barry Dixon, Kenneth Opeskin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 83% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael Philip BurkeDepartment of Forensic Medicine Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Monash University, 57-83 Kavanagh Street, 3006, Southbank, Victoria, Australia, michaelb@vifp.monash.edu.au.
Barry Dixon
Kenneth Opeskin
University of Melbourne · AUMonash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, we present the case of a previously well 31-year-old man who sustained a mild closed-head injury following a motor vehicle incident and was admitted to the intensive care unit of a major teaching hospital. The man was sedated using propofol combined with midazolam and morphine as the main sedating agent. The propofol was started and continued at high dose for 8 days, over which time the patient deteriorated with metabolic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, renal impairment, and cardiovascular collapse and then died. A forensic autopsy was performed. The only positive autopsy finding was a cardiac perivascular and interstitial infiltrate of mononuclear cells. The clinical and pathological features in the case presented were consistent with propofol infusion syndrome. No other cause for the above features was found and the cause of death was given as death related to propofol infusion syndrome.Propofol infusion syndrome is characterized by metabolic acidosis, rhadbomyolysis, and myocardial failure, sometimes with renal failure and hyperkalemia occurring in the setting of high-dose propofol treatment. The syndrome has become increasingly recognized in recent years. The syndrome is of importance to forensic pathologists who may see cases referred to their practice because of the unexplained deterioration of a patient in the intensive care unit and the association with head-injured patients and the pediatric population. Death associated with propofol infusion has not been described in the forensic literature.

Identifiers

PMID25868775
OpenAlexW2058643934

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.