Cardiovascular support in preterm infants: A survey of practices in Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Management of haemodynamic instability in premature neonates and selection of inotropic therapy are protocol driven, and therapeutic choices lack scientific validation. The aim of this study was to characterise practices related to the management of haemodynamic instability in premature infants. METHODS: An electronic web-based questionnaire was emailed to all neonatologists and advanced trainees in Australia and New Zealand. Respondents were presented with a series of questions related to the management of hypotension in a 1-day-old, extremely low birthweight infant, and opinions were collected. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 65% (114/176). Haemodynamically significant ductus arteriosus, systemic blood flow and left ventricular afterload were considered the most important physiologic concepts by 81, 68 and 50%, respectively. After initial crystalloid replacement, the next step in management reported included a second bolus (35%), dobutamine (28%), dopamine (17%) or clinician-performed cardiac ultrasound (CPCU) (20%). In the setting of hypotension resistant to dobutamine and dopamine, the most common strategies were to perform CPCU (57%), or administer hydrocortisone (39%), epinephrine (3.5%) or milrinone (<1%). The majority (66%) of respondents felt that premature infants are over-treated on the basis of presumed hypotension, while 83% felt that performing a CPCU would enhance clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation in the approach to management of haemodynamic instability in extremely low birthweight infants was identified. Haemodynamic information provided by a CPCU was considered highly desirable by the majority of the respondents.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".