Epinephrine Fails to Hasten Hemodynamic Recovery in Fully Developed Canine Anaphylactic Shock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epinephrine (Epi) is the treatment of choice for reversing cardiovascular collapse in anaphylactic shock (AS). However, there are few data supporting its use in this condition, and most treatment guidelines have been anecdotally derived. In the present study, the time course of hemodynamic recovery from maximal hypotension was investigated in a canine model of AS in which Epi was administered by the intravenous (IV), subcutaneous (SQ) and intramuscular (IM) routes on different occasions. The findings obtained with Epi treatment were compared to those in a nontreatment study. METHODS: Ragweed-sensitized dogs were examined in respective studies approximately 5 weeks apart in which Epi was administered by one of the above routes in a randomized design. Either Epi (0.01 mg/kg) or placebo was administered at maximal hypotension, and hemodynamics were followed for 3 h after shock. The animals were studied while ventilated and anesthetized. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), cardiac output, stroke volume (SV), pulmonary wedge pressure (Pwp) and plasma Epi concentrations were obtained at each measurement interval. RESULTS: In the IV study, Epi produced a transient immediate increase in MAP, SV and Pwp as compared to the nontreatment study (144 vs. 52 mm Hg; 32 vs. 12 ml; 9 vs. 5 mm Hg; p < 0.01), but no differences were observed 15 min after shock. Hemodynamics were not different between Epi and no treatment at any intervals when Epi was given by the SQ and IM routes. AS compared with the placebo study, plasma Epi concentrations were higher in the IV and IM studies, but not in the SQ study. CONCLUSIONS: Although higher Epi concentrations were observed in the IM and IV studies, a sustained benefit in hemodynamic recovery was not observed in this anesthetized, ventilated canine model. In AS, when administered during maximum shock after mediators have already been released, a single IM, IV or SQ dose of Epi may have limited utility in the treatment of cardiovascular collapse. Earlier administration of Epi, before maximal hypotension occurs, may produce a more beneficial effect.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".