The effects of dobutamine and dopamine on intrapulmonary shunt and gas exchange in healthy humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of intrapulmonary shunts with increased cardiac output during exercise in healthy humans has been reported in several recent studies, but mechanisms governing their recruitment remain unclear. Dobutamine and dopamine are inotropes commonly used to augment cardiac output; however, both can increase venous admixture/shunt fraction (Qs/Qt). It is possible that, as with exercise, intrapulmonary shunts are recruited with increased cardiac output during dobutamine and/or dopamine infusion that may contribute to the observed increase in Qs/Qt. The purpose of this study was to examine how dobutamine and dopamine affect intrapulmonary shunt and gas exchange. Nine resting healthy subjects received serial infusions of dobutamine and dopamine at incremental doses under normoxic and hyperoxic (inspired O(2) fraction = 1.0) conditions. At each step, alveolar-to-arterial Po(2) difference (A-aDo(2)) and Qs/Qt were calculated from arterial blood gas samples, intrapulmonary shunt was evaluated using contrast echocardiography, and cardiac output was calculated by Doppler echocardiography. Both dobutamine and dopamine increased cardiac output and Qs/Qt. Intrapulmonary shunt developed in most subjects with both drugs and paralleled the increase in Qs/Qt. A-aDo(2) was unchanged due to a concurrent rise in mixed venous oxygen content. Hyperoxia consistently eliminated intrapulmonary shunt. These findings contribute to our present understanding of the mechanisms governing recruitment of these intrapulmonary shunts as well as their impact on gas exchange. In addition, given the deleterious effect on Qs/Qt and the risk of neurological complications with intrapulmonary shunts, these findings could have important implications for use of dobutamine and dopamine in the clinical setting.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".