The role of calcium channel blockers, steroids, anticoagulation, antiplatelet drugs, and endothelin receptor antagonists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rationale for the drug therapy of pulmonary artery hypertension is to reduce mortality and morbidity caused by failure of right ventricular adaptation to an elevated pulmonary vascular resistance. We review the evidence for the use of calcium-channel blockers, steroids, anticoagulation, antiplatelet drugs, and endothelin receptor antagonists in the management of pulmonary artery hypertension. The drugs we discuss are more suited to long-term outpatient therapy. These drugs have not found a routine place in intensive care management, and calcium-channel blockers are contraindicated in patients with right-heart failure. The efficacy of many agents has been extrapolated from data acquired in adult patients and applied to children. All of us involved in the care of young patients with pulmonary artery hypertension should advocate for both the inclusion of younger patients in clinical trials and the design of distinctly pediatric trials with pharmaceutical and drug administration agencies. It is only with data derived from pediatric inclusive studies that we shall be able to recommend therapy with strong evidence. However, it is important to point out that the use of newer agents for the treatment of chronic pulmonary artery hypertension (prostacyclin, endothelin receptor antagonists, nitric oxide, and sildenafil) have not been shown to improve survival unequivocally and have relied on surrogates, such as exercise capacity. There are no long-term studies of survival benefit. Recent studies have included data on time to clinical worsening, which may be a more predictive surrogate of survival.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".