MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034642626 · doi:10.1186/cc5483

Vasopressin alone or with epinephrine may be superior to epinephrine in asystolic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an observational study

2007· article· en· W2034642626 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mateja Špindler, Štefek Grmec, Štefan Mally

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBayer Canada
KeywordsMedicineEpinephrineObservational studyVasopressinAnesthesiaEmergency medicineInternal medicineIntensive care medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, circulating endogenous vasopressin concentrations were significantly higher in successfully resuscitated patients than in patients who died. Clinical data considering vasopressin to be an equivalent option to epinephrine in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are limited. The studies of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) confirm an increasing part of asystole as the initial rhythm. The hypothesis of this study was that vasopressin improves the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and the survival rate in asystolic OHCA, when used early in the resuscitation effort. This was a prospective cohort study, with a historic group compared trial set in an urban emergency medical services system, serving a population of 200,000. All nonpregnant, normothermic adults (>18 years) suffering nontraumatic OHCA with asystole were eligible. We compared two treatment groups of resuscitated patients with OHCA. In the epinephrine group (EPI) patients received epinephrine 1 mg i.v. every 3 minutes only. In the vasopressin group (VASO) patients received arginine vasopressin 40 IU i.v. only or followed by epinephrine 1 mg every 3 minutes during CPR. Exact Fisher test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and analysis of independent predictors with multivariate logistic regression were used; P < 0.05. The investigators enrolled 227 consecutive patients: in the EPI group 183 patients (years 2001–2003) and in the VASO group 44 patients (year 2004). Baseline (demographic and clinical) characteristics were similar for the two groups. Comparing the EPI and VASO groups, any ROSC was achieved in 81/183 (44%) and 34/44 (77%), P = 0.04; ROSC with admission in 61/183 (33%) and 27/44 (61%), P = 0.03; 24-hour survival in 44/183 (24%) and 23/44 (52%), P = 0.01; and discharge from hospital in 17/183 (9%) and 10/44 (23%), P = 0.04. Vasopressin was an independent predictor of ROSC with admission with an odds ratio of 2.4 (95% CI = 1.24–4.98). Vasopressin was superior to epinephrine in patients with asystole (better ROSC with admission, 24-hour survival and discharge from hospital). Vasopressin followed by epinephrine was more effective than epinephrine alone in the treatment of refractory cardiac arrest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207