Acute hemodynamic effects of Iloprost Solution for Inhalation on patients with pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the acute hemodynamic effects of Iloprost Solution for Inhalation on patients with pulmonary hypertension.Methods Seventeen patients with pulmonary hypertension underwent hemodynamic monitoring by Swan-Ganz floating catheter and invasive arterial monitoring.Hemodynamic parameters of pulmonary and blood circulation,oxygenation index and adverse reactions before and after use of Iloprost Solution for Inhalation were observed and compared.Results Hemodynamic and oxygenation parameters before and after use of Iloprost Solution for Inhalation were as follows:heart rate [(87±12) beats/min VS(85±14) beats/min,P=0.13],mean right atrial pressure [(10±5) mmHg VS(9±5) mmHg,P=0.23],mean pulmonary arterial pressure [(78±23) mmHg VS(67±19) mmHg,P=0.03],pulmonary vascular resistance [(15.8±5.3) woods VS(11.6±4.7) woods,P=0.02],cardiac output [(4.3±1.1) L/min VS(4.9±1.4) L/min,P=0.04],mean pulmonary capillary wedge pressure [(10±4) mmHg VS(10±3) mmHg,P=0.35],mixed venous oxygen saturation [(65±3)% VS(67±3)%,P=0.14],mean systemic arterial pressure [(84±12) mmHg VS(83±11) mmHg,P=0.08],systemic vascular resistance [(17.2±5.1) woods VS(15.1±4.0) woods,P=0.08],arterial oxygen saturation [(92±4)% VS(93±3)%,P=0.44].Adverse reactions were mild,included 2 cases of cough and blushing respectively,and 1 case of headache.Conclusion Iloprost Solution for Inhalation can significantly improve pulmonary circulation hemodynamic parameters in patients with pulmonary hypertension with mild adverse reactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".