The effect of milrinone on right and left ventricular function when used as a rescue therapy for term infants with pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Milrinone may be an appropriate adjuvant therapy for infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. We aimed to describe the effect of milrinone administration on right and left ventricular function in infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension not responding to inhaled nitric oxide after 4 hours of administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective review of infants born after or at 34 weeks of gestation with persistent pulmonary hypertension who received milrinone treatment. The primary endpoint was the effect of milrinone on myocardial performance and haemodynamics, including right and left ventricular outputs, tissue Doppler velocities, right ventricle and septal strain, and strain rate. Secondary endpoints examined included duration of inhaled nitric oxide and oxygen support. RESULTS: A total of 17 infants with a mean (standard deviation) gestation and birth weight of 39.8 (2.0) weeks and 3.45 (0.39) kilograms, respectively, were included in the study. The first echocardiogram was performed 15 hours after the commencement of nitric oxide inhalation. Milrinone treatment was started at a median time of 1 hour after the echocardiogram and was associated with an increase in left ventricular output (p=0.04), right ventricular output (p=0.004), right ventricle strain (p=0.01) and strain rate (p=0.002), and left ventricle s` (p<0.001) and a` (p=0.02) waves. There was a reduction in nitric oxide dose and oxygen requirement over the subsequent 72 hours (all p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of milrinone as an adjunct to nitric oxide is worth further exploration, with preliminary evidence suggesting an improvement in both oxygenation and myocardial performance in this group of infants.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".