Preliminary experience with inhaled milrinone in cardiac surgery☆
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inhaled administration of milrinone reduces pulmonary artery pressure. Pulmonary hypertension (PH) and right heart failure are associated with difficult separation from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Therefore, inhaled milrinone could facilitate separation from CPB. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact and timing of administration of inhaled milrinone. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of our experience on high-risk patients receiving inhaled milrinone was conducted to evaluate the postoperative course after administration of the drug. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients received inhaled milrinone from June 2002 to February 2005. Mean age was 64+/-13 years, with a mean preoperative Parsonnet score of 27+/-14. Inhaled milrinone (5mg) was administered before (n=30) or after (n=40) CPB, three patients had off-pump procedures and were excluded. CPB time was 145+/-78 min with cross-clamping times of 91+/-56 min without any significant difference between groups. Fifty-four patients (74%) had difficult separation from CPB, 14 patients (19%) required an intra-aortic balloon pump and 10 patients (14%) needed emergency reinitiation of CPB for hemodynamic instability. Ten patients died in the perioperative period (13.7%). Patients receiving inhaled milrinone prior to CPB initiation had a lowering pulmonary artery pressure after CPB (p<.01) and had less emergency reinitiation of CPB after weaning (3% vs 23%, p=.02) as compared to those with administration after CPB. No detectable side effects were directly linked to the administration of the drug. CONCLUSION: In this high-risk cohort, use of inhaled milrinone was well tolerated. Administration before initiation of CPB could help weaning from CPB.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".