The Effect of Fat Emulsion on Hemodynamics Following Treatment With Propranolol and Clonidine in Anesthetized Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is evidence indicating that intravenous fatty emulsion (IFE) is beneficial in restoring circulatory function in certain types of drug overdose. The authors investigated the hemodynamic effects of IFE compared to epinephrine in rats treated with propranolol and clonidine. METHODS: Anesthetized male Sprague-Dawley rats were instrumented for measurement of hemodynamics. Rats were randomly assigned to one of six groups (n = 6-8), and each received a clonidine infusion (150 μg/kg) or an equivalent volume of normal saline (0.9% NaCl) over 1 hour. Each rat then received normal saline (1.0 mL/kg) or propranolol (15 to 20 mg/kg). Thereafter, each rat received a dose of IFE (20% solution; 1.0 mL/kg) or epinephrine (2.0 μg/kg) or an equivalent volume of normal saline (1.0 mL/kg). RESULTS: Propranolol alone or with clonidine significantly (p < 0.05) reduced a number of hemodynamic parameters (mean arterial pressure, 37% to 70%; heart rate, 30% to 51%; cardiac contractility [dP/dtmax], 50% to 67%; and abdominal aortic blood flow, 50% to 83%), while increasing PR intervals (65% to 85%) and QTc intervals (26% to 64%). Saline and epinephrine treatment after propranolol and clonidine combined resulted in no survivors in saline and two out of six in epinephrine group. IFE resulted in significant survival (seven out of eight) for 30 minutes in rats treated with propranolol alone, and propranolol combined with clonidine (seven out of eight). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that IFE is effective for resuscitating rats overdosed on propranolol combined with clonidine. The effect of IFF is unlikely due to a direct positive inotropic or chronotropic action on the myocardium. IFE is also more effective than epinephrine treatment in this paradigm.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".