Impact of dopamine or dobutamine infusions on cardiovascular variables after rapid blood loss and volume replacement during isoflurane-induced anesthesia in dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cardiovascular effects of dopamine and dobutamine infusions during nor-movolemia, hypovolemia (HV) through blood loss of 10 mL/kg (HV(10)), further loss to 25 mL/kg (HV(25)), and volume replacement (VR) in isoflurane-anesthetized dogs. ANIMALS: 7 healthy young dogs. PROCEDURES: Dogs were anesthetized with isoflurane 2 times (3 weeks apart). Cardiovascular measurements were obtained for each volume state. The cardiac index (CI) determined by the lithium dilution technique was compared with CI assessed by the arterial pulse contour technique. At each volume state, random treatment with dobutamine or dopamine was assessed (CI by the arterial pulse contour technique). Ten-minute treatments with 3 and 6 microg of dobutamine/kg/min or 7 and 14 microg of dopamine/kg/min (low and high doses, respectively) were administered sequentially. Differences from baseline were determined for volume, drug, and dose effects. RESULTS: Significant proportional changes in blood pressure (BP), stroke index (SI), and CI were evident with changes in volume state. Systemic vascular resistance (SVR) decreased after VR. Dobutamine induced little change in BP; increased heart rate (HR), SI, and CI; and decreased SVR (high dose). Dopamine increased BP and SI, did not change CI, and increased SVR (high dose). The arterial pulse contour technique underestimated changes in CI associated with volume changes. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Isoflurane eliminates clinically obvious compensatory increases in HR during HV. Dopamine is suitable for temporary management of blood loss in isoflurane-anesthetized dogs. Dobutamine increased CI without an associated improvement in BP. The arterial pulse contour monitor should be recalibrated when volume status changes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".