Vasopressin in Pediatric Vasodilatory Shock: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Vasopressin has been proposed as a potent vasoactive agent in the treatment of vasodilatory shock in adults and children. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vasopressin as an adjunctive agent in pediatric vasodilatory shock. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, children with vasodilatory shock were randomized to receive low-dose vasopressin (0.0005-0.002 U/kg/min) or placebo in addition to open-label vasoactive agents. Vasoactive infusions were titrated to clinical endpoints of adequate perfusion. The primary outcome was time to vasoactive-free hemodynamic stability. Secondary outcomes included mortality, organ-failure-free days, length of critical care unit stay, and adverse events. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-five of 69 children (94%) who were randomized received the study drug (33 vasopressin, 32 placebo) and were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the vasopressin and placebo groups (49.7 vs. 47.1 hours; P = 0.85). There were 10 deaths (30%) in the vasopressin group and five (15.6%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-5.05; P = 0.24). There were no significant differences with respect to organ failure-free days (22 vs. 25.5 days; P = 0.11), ventilator-free days (16.5 23 days; P = 0.15), length of stay (8 vs. 8.5 days; P = 0.93), or adverse event rate ratios (12.0%; 95% confidence interval, -2.6 to 26.7; P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose vasopressin did not demonstrate any beneficial effects in this pediatric trial. Although not statistically significant, there was a concerning trend toward increased mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN11597444).
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".