What Are the Acute Cardiovascular Effects of Subcutaneous and Topical Epinephrine for Hemostasis During Burn Surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although subcutaneous and topical epinephrine are widely used for hemostasis during burn surgery, the acute systemic cardiovascular effects of the epinephrine are neither well documented nor completely understood. The purpose of this work was to prospectively study the acute cardiovascular responses to epinephrine (epi) administered subcutaneously and topically during burn surgery. Consecutive patients who received subcutaneous and topical epi during burn surgery were monitored prior to the administration of epi, at 2-minute intervals during subcutaneous epi infiltration, and then after epi infiltration (during which time, topical epi was applied). This period of monitoring lasted up to 20 minutes and was referred to as an epinephrine event (EE). A total of 100 EEs from 38 operations in 24 patients (mean +/- SD: age 43 +/- 16 years, mean % TBSA burn 23 +/- 17%) were studied. The mean dose of subcutaneous epi was 30 +/- 30 microg/kg. Although all patients received topical epi, it was impossible to document the topical dose. There was no significant increase in heart rate from baseline, and no arrhythmias occurred. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) did acutely increase significantly by 17.0 +/- 14.1% from baseline (P =.009) and increased more than 10% from baseline in 64/100 EEs. However, the increase in MAP was independent of the dose of epi (r =.053). The increase in MAP was not clinically significant, did not require intervention, and did not appear to be related to the type of wound that received epi (donor site vs burn wound), or the depth of anesthesia, analgesia, or sedation. On the basis of these findings, the use of subcutaneous and topical epi appears to be safe and produces minimal acute cardiovascular effects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".