The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Randomized Clinical Trial of the Effect of Deliberate Perioperative Increase of Oxygen Delivery on Mortality in High-Risk Surgical Patients
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of deliberate perioperative increase in oxygen delivery on mortality and morbidity in patients who are at high risk of both following surgery. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: A teaching hospital general intensive care unit, London, England. PATIENTS: A total of 107 surgical patients, who were assessed as high risk from previously identified criteria, were studied during an 18-month period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to a control group (n = 54) that received best standard perioperative care, or to a protocol group (n = 53) that, in addition, had deliberate increase of oxygen delivery index to greater than 600 mL/min per square meter by use of dopexamine hydrochloride infusion. OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality and complications were assessed to 28 days postoperatively. RESULTS: Groups were similar with respect to demographics, admission criteria, operation type, and admission hemodynamic variables. Groups were treated similarly to maintain blood pressure, arterial saturation, hemoglobin concentration, and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure; however, once additional treatment with dopexamine hydrochloride had been given, the protocol group had significantly higher oxygen delivery preoperatively (median, 597 vs 399 mL/min per square meter; P < .001) and postoperatively (P < .001). Results indicate a 75% reduction in mortality (5.7% vs 22.2%; P = .015) and a halving of the mean (+/- SEM) number of complications per patient (0.68 [+/- 0.16] vs 1.35 [+/- 0.20]; P = .008) in patients randomized to the protocol group. CONCLUSION: Perioperative increase of oxygen delivery with dopexamine hydrochloride significantly reduces mortality and morbidity in high-risk surgical patients.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial of Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care
Hébert, P. C., Wells, G., Blajchman, M. A., Marshall, J., Martin, C., Pagliarello, G., Tweeddale, M., Schweitzer, I., & Yetisir, E. (1999) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199902113400601 · Cited by 5,187
Elevation of Systemic Oxygen Delivery in the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients
Hayes, M. A., Timmins, A. C., Yau, E., Palazzo, M., Hinds, C. J., & Watson, D. (1994) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199406163302404 · Cited by 1,538
Antonelli, M., Levy, M., Andrews, P. J. D., Chastre, J., Hudson, L. D., Manthous, C., Meduri, G. U., Moreno, R. P., Putensen, C., Stewart, T., et al. (2007) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-007-0531-4 · Cited by 466
Cecconi, M., Rhodes, A., Poloniecki, J., Della Rocca, G., & Grounds, R. M. (2009) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc7129 · Cited by 351
Cecconi, M., Corredor, C., Arulkumaran, N., Abuella, G., Ball, J., Grounds, R. M., Hamilton, M., & Rhodes, A. (2012) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc11823 · Cited by 339
Metadata
- Authors
- Boyd, O.
- Venue
- JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1993-12-08
- Volume
- 270
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 2699
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2018308183
- Cited by
- 997
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 38.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomized Clinical Trial of the Effect of Deliberate Perioperative Increase of Oxygen Delivery on Mortality in High-Risk Surgical Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1993.03510220055034
- The paper
- Boyd, O. (1993). A Randomized Clinical Trial of the Effect of Deliberate Perioperative Increase of Oxygen Delivery on Mortality in High-Risk Surgical Patients. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1993.03510220055034
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.