MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331117443 · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e31826ac3db

Phenylephrine Infusion Versus Bolus Regimens During Cesarean Delivery Under Spinal Anesthesia

2012· article· en· W2331117443 on OpenAlexaff
Anne M. Doherty, Yayoi Ohashi, Kristi Downey, Jose C. A. Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaPhenylephrineBolus (digestion)BradycardiaRegimenHeart rateCardiac outputBlood pressureNauseaVomitingHemodynamicsEjection fractionSurgeryCardiologyHeart failureInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Phenylephrine is used to prevent and treat hypotension during spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery. The optimal administration regimen is undetermined. We used a Non-invasive cardiac output monitor to test the hypothesis that a fixed-rate phenylephrine infusion regimen would cause a smaller reduction in maternal cardiac output, and result in less maternal hypotension, as compared to a phenylephrine bolus regimen. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Patients were randomized to an intermittent bolus (120 μg) or a fixed-rate infusion (120 μg/min) regimen of phenylephrine. Any decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline was treated. The primary outcome was the maximum change in cardiac output in the predelivery period, assessed using bioreactance technology. Secondary outcomes included the maximum change in heart rate, incidence of hypo- and hypertension, nausea/vomiting and bradycardia, total dose of phenylephrine, umbilical blood gases, and Apgar scores. The hemodynamic profiles over time in each treatment arm were compared. RESULTS: Sixty patients were studied. There was no significant difference in the maximum change in cardiac output between the 2 treatment arms: mean (SD) maximum change in cardiac output in the bolus group was 1.87 (1.68) L/min versus 1.9 (1.46) L/min in the infusion group (P = 0.94) (95% confidence intervals of difference in means: -0.84 to 0.78 L/min). The infusion group received significantly more phenylephrine (1740 (613) versus 964 (454) μg) (P < 0.001). In the initial 6 min after intrathecal injection, there was a significant decrease in blood pressure in the infusion group compared to the bolus group (P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: There were no clinical benefits to administering phenylephrine as an infusion versus a bolus regimen. The bolus regimen maintained maternal arterial blood pressure closer to baseline in the initial minutes after spinal injection but this had no clinical benefits. The infusion regimen required a higher total dose of phenylephrine to maintain maternal arterial blood pressure at baseline during the predelivery period.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations111
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207