Limited echocardiography–guided therapy in subacute shock is associated with change in management and improved outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare the effect of limited echocardiography (LE)-guided therapy to standard management on 28-day mortality, intravenous fluid prescription, and inotropic dosing following early resuscitation for shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred twenty critically ill patients with undifferentiated shock from a quaternary intensive care unit were included in the study. The LE group consisted of 110 consecutive patients prospectively studied over a 12-month period receiving LE-guided management. The standard management group consisted of 110 consecutive patients retrospectively studied with shock immediately prior to the LE intervention. RESULTS: In the LE group, fluid restriction was recommended in 71 (65%) patients and initiation of dobutamine in 27 (25%). Fluid prescription during the first 24 hours was significantly lower in LE patients (49 [33-74] vs 66 [42-100] mL/kg, P = .01), whereas 55% more LE patients received dobutamine (22% vs 12%, P = .01). The LE patients had improved 28-day survival (66% vs 56%, P = .04), a reduction in stage 3 acute kidney injury (20% vs 39%), and more days alive and free of renal support (28 [9.7-28] vs 25 [5-28], P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Limited echocardiography-guided management following early resuscitation is associated with improved survival, less fluid, and increased inotropic prescription. A prospective randomized control trial is required to verify these results.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".