Dobutamine and its haemodynamic effects in pleural effusion
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Editor, The recent report by Wemmelund et al.1 addressing the haemodynamic effects of dobutamine in a porcine model of pleural effusion outlines a very curious interpretation of their findings. They stated that dobutamine ‘aggravates haemodynamic deterioration induced by pleural effusion’ suggesting that it may be an inappropriate and potentially harmful treatment in patients with pleural effusion. In stark contrast, we believe the data show that the net effects of dobutamine are highly beneficial in treating of the haemodynamic changes associated with pleural effusions. This apparently negative view espoused by Wemmelund et al. seems to be predicated on the finding of their primary isolated endpoint of left ventricular (LV) pre-load [defined as the LV end-diastolic area (LVEDA)], that was reduced with increasing doses of this commonly used inotropic agent. Indeed, this is a very curious interpretation as almost every other haemodynamic parameter reported demonstrated significant improvement with increases in fractional area of contraction, blood pressure and mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2), along with decreases in LV end-systolic area and central venous pressure (CVP) – indicating that the net haemodynamic effect of dobutamine was significantly beneficial. Furthermore, it is predictable that CVP decreases with incremental doses of dobutamine, especially when the right ventricle (RV) is responsive to inotropy (as would be expected in this model). This measured CVP represents the intersection of the RV Frank-Starling and the Guytonian venous return curves. Dobutamine, through its beta-2 effects, reduces both the mean systemic filling pressure and resistance to venous return, whereas also moving the RV Frank–Starling curve leftward [due to increased contractility and increased heart rate (HR)];2 cardiac output (CO) will increase significantly, whereas CVP may be unchanged or decrease. Similarly on the left heart side, the LVEDA is predictably decreased, with the left heart dealing with the increased flow from the right heart with a high HR and increased inotropy. Importantly, dobutamine has many haemodynamic effects, not all of which were reported in this study. For example, it is clear that the overall CO and perfusion status was increased, as evidenced by large increases in increased SvO2. Furthermore, although the pulmonary artery pressures were initially increased by the pleural effusion, pulmonary pressures were not significantly reduced by the subsequent infusion of dobutamine. However, the pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was undoubtedly reduced, as the higher CO coupled with lower PVR, resulted in a net unchanged pulmonary pressure. In addition, other specific indices of RV function were not measured. Pleural effusions, by mechanical compression of lung and resulting reductions in functional residual capacity, increase PVR.3 Accordingly, a more complete understanding of the haemodynamic effects might have been facilitated with a more comprehensive assessment of RV function. Dobutamine, in addition to other important manoeuvers,4 is often a very effective drug in the treating RV dysfunction.5 Though choosing a single primary end point and reporting its results primarily is clearly the correct manner by which to proceed with study reporting, the global patterns seen should take precedence and drive the overall interpretation of the results. Accordingly, we suggest that despite the LVEDA being reduced by dobutamine (in isolation indicating a decrease in preload which might have negative consequences in certain clinical situations), the overall net effect suggests an amelioration of the haemodynamic deterioration induced from pleural effusion as opposed to an aggravation. Acknowledgements relating to this article Assistance with the letter: none. Financial support and sponsorship: none. Conflicts of interest: none.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».