Permissive hypotension does not reduce regional organ perfusion compared to normotensive resuscitation: animal study with fluorescent microspheres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to investigate regional organ perfusion acutely following uncontrolled hemorrhage in an animal model that simulates a penetrating vascular injury and accounts for prehospital times in urban trauma. We set forth to determine if hypotensive resuscitation (permissive hypotension) would result in equivalent organ perfusion compared to normotensive resuscitation. METHODS: Twenty four (n=24) male rats randomized to 4 groups: Sham, No Fluid (NF), Permissive Hypotension (PH) (60% of baseline mean arterial pressure - MAP), Normotensive Resuscitation (NBP). Uncontrolled hemorrhage caused by a standardised injury to the abdominal aorta; MAP was monitored continuously and lactated Ringer's was infused. Fluorimeter readings of regional blood flow of the brain, heart, lung, kidney, liver, and bowel were obtained at baseline and 85 minutes after hemorrhage, as well as, cardiac output, lactic acid, and laboratory tests; intra-abdominal blood loss was assessed. Analysis of variance was used for comparison. RESULTS: Intra-abdominal blood loss was higher in NBP group, as well as, lower hematocrit and hemoglobin levels. No statistical differences in perfusion of any organ between PH and NBP groups. No statistical difference in cardiac output between PH and NBP groups, as well as, in lactic acid levels between PH and NBP. NF group had significantly higher lactic acidosis and had significantly lower organ perfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Hypotensive resuscitation causes less intra-abdominal bleeding than normotensive resuscitation and concurrently maintains equivalent organ perfusion. No fluid resuscitation reduces intra-abdominal bleeding but also significantly reduces organ perfusion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".