EPINEPHRINE VERSUS DOPAMINE TO TREAT SHOCK IN HYPOXIC NEWBORN PIGS RESUSCITATED WITH 100% OXYGEN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shock and tissue hypoperfusion are common after asphyxia. We compared systemic and regional hemodynamic effects of epinephrine and dopamine in the treatment of shock and hypotension in asphyxiated newborn piglets resuscitated with 100% oxygen. Twenty-four piglets (1-3 days old; weight, 1.4-2.6 kg) were acutely instrumented to measure cardiac index (CI), carotid, mesenteric and renal arterial blood flows, and mean systemic (SAPs) and pulmonary arterial pressures (PAPs). Piglets had normocapnic alveolar hypoxia (F(IO2)=0.08-0.10) for 50 min and reoxygenated with F(IO2)=1.0 for 1 h then F(IO2)=0.21 for 3.5 h. After 2 h reoxygenation, either dopamine (2 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) or epinephrine (0.2 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) was given for 30 min in a blinded randomized manner, which was then increased to maintain SAP (within 10% of baseline, pressure-driven dose) for 2 h. Hypoxia caused hypotension (SAP, 44%+/-3% of baseline), cardiogenic shock (CI, 41%+/-4%), and metabolic acidosis (mean pH, 7.04-7.09). Upon reoxygenation, hemodynamic parameters immediately recovered but gradually deteriorated during 2 h with SAP at 45+/-1 mmHg, CI at 74+/-9% of baseline, and pH 7.32+/-0.03. Low doses of either drug had no significant systemic and renal hemodynamic response. Epinephrine (0.3-1.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) for 2 h increased SAP and CI (with higher stroke volume) and decreased pulmonary vascular resistance (with reduced PAP-SAP ratio), whereas the responses with dopamine (10-25 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) were modest. Low-dose epinephrine improved mesenteric and carotid arterial flows, whereas the pressure-driven doses of epinephrine and dopamine increased carotid and mesenteric arterial flows, respectively. To treat shock in asphyxiated newborn piglets resuscitated with 100% oxygen, epinephrine exhibits an inotropic action compared with dopamine, whereas both catecholamines can increase carotid and mesenteric perfusion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".