Haemodynamic Responses to Dopamine and Dobutamine Infusions as a Function of Duration of Infusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In normal animals, dopamine and dobutamine produce similar haemodynamic effects. However, clinical observations on patients in heart failure suggest that dobutamine produces a more favourable and stable haemodynamic effect. One explanation is that the inotropic action of dopamine is largely an indirect one mediated through noradrenaline release, while that of dobutamine is direct. If this were true, one would predict that the haemodynamic effects of dopamine and dobutamine would be similar over short-term infusions, but that the response to dopamine would be attenuated with time as a result of noradrenaline depletion. Experiments are reported which are consistent with this explanation. 15-min infusions of graded doses of dopamine and dobutamine produced indistinguishable haemodynamic effects in a dog model in which the haemodynamic characteristics of heart failure were produced by a chronic aorta-left atrial shunt: dopamine also produced the expected increase in mesenteric and renal flows with this short-term exposure. With long-term infusions of dopamine (5 h), the specific mesenteric/renal vasodilatation was lost with time, and indices of myocardial contractility also were attenuated with time. In contrast, the haemodynamic actions of dobutamine were well maintained. Both amines lowered total peripheral resistance and ventricular filling pressures over the entire period. These results suggest that the haemodynamic responses to dopamine change with time, and that some of the discrepancies between animal observations (short term) and those in patients (invariably long term) can be explained on this basis rather than on the basis of species differences or underlying pathology. They also suggest that dopamine is a less suitable 'inotropic' drug than dobutamine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".