Permissive Hypotension and Desmopressin Enhance Clot Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experimental studies of uncontrolled hemorrhage demonstrated that permissive hypotension (PH) reduces blood loss, but its effect on clot formation remains unexplored. Desmopressin (DDAVP) enhances platelet adhesion promoting stronger clots. We hypothesized PH and DDAVP have additive effects and reduce bleeding in uncontrolled hemorrhage. METHODS: Rabbits (n = 42) randomized as follows: sham; normal blood pressure (NBP) resuscitation; PH resuscitation-60% baseline mean arterial pressure; NBP plus DDAVP 1 hour before (DDAVP NBP) or 15 minutes after beginning of shock (DDAVP T1 NBP); and PH plus DDAVP 1 hour before (DDAVP PH) or 15 minutes after beginning of shock (DDAVP T1 PH). Fluid resuscitation started 15 minutes after aortic injury and ended at 85 minutes. Intraabdominal blood loss was calculated, aortic clot sent for electron microscopy. Activated partial thromboplastin time, platelet count, thromboelastometry, arterial blood gases, and complete blood count were performed at baseline and 85 minutes. Analysis of variance was used for comparison. RESULTS: NBP received more fluid volume and had greater intraabdominal blood loss. DDAVP, when administered preshock, significantly reduced blood loss in NBP and fluid requirement when given postshock. Platelets, arterial blood gas, complete blood count, and activated partial thromboplastin time were similar at 85 minutes. NBP delayed clot formation and worsened thrombodynamic potential on thromboelastometry, whereas PH and DDAVP improved. Electron microscopy showed lack of fibrin on NBP clots, whereas DDAVP and PH clots displayed exuberant fibrin/platelet aggregates. DDAVP NBP presented intermediate clots. CONCLUSION: PH reduced bleeding and improved hemostasis compared with normotensive resuscitation. DDAVP given preshock exerted similar effects with normotensive resuscitation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".