MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169584597 · doi:10.1106/jqwy-6udr-1d5q

Update on Vasopressors and Inotropes in Septic Shock

2002· article· en· W2169584597 on OpenAlexaff
Maria I. Rudis, C. A. Chant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pharmacy Practice · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockNorepinephrineInotropeShock (circulatory)Splanchnic CirculationOxygen transportAnesthesiaEpinephrineSplanchnicHemodynamicsPerfusionSepsisCardiologyInternal medicineDopamineOxygenChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vasopressors and inotropes are used in septic shock in patients who remain hypotensive despite adequate fluid resuscitation. The goal is to increase blood pressure to optimize perfusion to organs. Generally, goal-directed therapy to supra-normal oxygen transport variables cannot be recommended due to lack of benefit. Traditionally, vasopressors and inotropes in septic shock have been started in a step-wise fashion starting with dopamine. Recent data suggest that there may be true differences among vasopressors and inotropes on local tissue perfusion as measured by regional hemodynamic and oxygen transport. When started early in septic shock, norepinephrine decreases mortality, optimizes hemodynamic variables, and improves systemic and regional (eg, renal, gastric mucosal, splanchnic) perfusion. Epinephrine causes a greater increase in cardiac index (CI) and oxygen delivery (DO 2 ) and increases gastric mucosal flow, but increases lactic acid and may not adequately preserve splanchnic circulation owing to its predominant vasoconstrictive alpha (α ) effects. Epinephrine may be particularly useful when used earlier in the course of septic shock in young patients and those who do not have any known cardiac abnormalities. Unlike epinephrine, dopamine does not preferentially increase the proportion of CI that preferentially goes to the splanchnic circulation. Dopamine is further limited because it cannot increase CI by more than 35% and is accompanied by tachycardia or tachydysrhythmias. Dopamine, as opposed to norepinephrine, may worsen splanchnic oxygen consumption (VO 2 ) and oxygen extraction ratio (O 2 ER). Low-dose dopamine has not been shown to consistently increase the glomerular filtration rate or prevent renal failure, and, indeed, worsens splanchnic tissue oxygen use. Routine use of concurrently administered dopamine with vasopressors is not recommended. Phenylephrine should be used when a pure vasoconstrictor is desired in patients who may not require or do not tolerate the beta (β ) effects of dopamine or norepinephrine with or without dobutamine. Patients with high filling pressure and hypotension may benefit from the combination of phenylephrine and dobutamine. Investigational approaches to vasopressor-refractory hypotension in septic shock include the use of vasopressin and corticosteroids.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.751

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pharmacy PracticeSame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207