Norepinephrine as a Potential Aggravator of Symptomatic Cerebral Vasospasm: Two Cases and Argument for Milrinone Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. During hypertensive therapy for post-subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) symptomatic vasospasm, norepinephrine is commonly used to reach target blood pressures. Concerns over aggravation of vasospasm with norepinephrine exist. Objective. To describe norepinephrine temporally related deterioration in neurological examination of two post-SAH patients in vasospasm. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed two charts of patients with delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) post-SAH who deteriorated with norepinephrine infusions. Results. We identified two patients with DCI post-SAH who deteriorated during hypertensive therapy with norepinephrine. The first, a 43-year-old male presented to hospital with DCI, failed MABP directed therapy with rapid deterioration in exam with high dose norepinephrine and MABP of 140-150 mm Hg. His exam improved on continuous milrinone and discontinuation of norepinephrine. The second, a 39-year-old female who developed DCI on postbleed day 8 responded to milrinone therapy upfront. During further deterioration and after angioplasty, norepinephrine was utilized to drive MABP to 130-140 mm Hg. Progressive deterioration in examination occurred after angioplasty as norepinephrine doses escalated. After discontinuation of norepinephrine and continuation of milrinone, function dramatically returned but not to baseline. Conclusions. The potential exists for worsening of DCI post-SAH with hypertensive therapy directed by norepinephrine. A potential role exists for vasodilation and inotropic directed therapy with milrinone in the setting of DCI post-SAH.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".