Response of hypotensive dogs to dopamine hydrochloride and dobutamine hydrochloride during deep isoflurane anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the dose-related cardiovascular and urine output (UrO) effects of dopamine hydrochloride and dobutamine hydrochloride, administered individually and in combination at various ratios, and identify individual doses that achieve target mean arterial blood pressure (MAP; 70 mm Hg) and cardiac index (CI; 150 mL/kg/min) in dogs during deep isoflurane anesthesia. ANIMALS: 10 young clinically normal dogs. PROCEDURES: Following isoflurane equilibration at a baseline MAP of 50 mm Hg on 3 occasions, dogs randomly received IV administration of dopamine (3, 7, 10, 15, and 20 microg/kg/min), dobutamine (1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 microg/kg/min), and dopamine-dobutamine combinations (3.5:1, 3.5:4, 7:2, 14:1, and 14:4 microg/kg/min) in a crossover study. Selected cardiovascular and UrO effects were determined following 20-minute infusions at each dose. RESULTS: Dopamine caused significant dose-dependent responses and achieved target MAP and CI at 7 microg/kg/min; dobutamine at 2 microg/kg/min significantly affected only CI values. At any dose, dopamine significantly affected UrO, whereas dobutamine did not. Target MAP and CI values were achieved with a dopamine-dobutamine combination at 7:2 microg/kg/min; a dopamine-related dose response for MAP and dopamine- and dobutamine-related dose responses for CI were identified. Changes in UrO were associated with dopamine only. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In isoflurane-anesthetized dogs, a guideline dose for dopamine of 7 microg/kg/min is suggested; dobutamine alone did not improve MAP. Data regarding cardiovascular and UrO effects indicated that the combination of dopamine and dobutamine did not provide greater benefit than use of dopamine alone in dogs.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".