MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516506260 · doi:10.1159/000447960

Evidence on Adrenaline Use in Resuscitation and Its Relevance to Newborn Infants: A Non-Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W2516506260 on OpenAlexafffund
Merlin Pinto, Anne Lee Solevåg, Megan O’Reilly, Khalid Aziz, Po‐Yin Cheung, Georg M. Schmölzer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeonatology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alexandra Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAsphyxiaResuscitationEpinephrineAnesthesiaCardiopulmonary resuscitationReturn of spontaneous circulationBronchopulmonary dysplasiaNecrotizing enterocolitisIntensive care medicineNeonatal resuscitationInternal medicineGestational agePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: Guidelines for newborn resuscitation state that if the heart rate does not increase despite adequate ventilation and chest compressions, adrenaline administration should be considered. However, controversy exists around the safety and effectiveness of adrenaline in newborn resuscitation. The aim of this review was to summarise a selection of the current knowledge about adrenaline during resuscitation and evaluate its relevance to newborn infants. METHODS: A search in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar until September 1, 2015, using search terms including adrenaline/epinephrine, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, death, severe brain injury, necrotizing enterocolitis, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, and adrenaline versus vasopressin/placebo. RESULTS: Adult data indicate that adrenaline improves the return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) but not survival to hospital discharge. Newborn animal studies reported that adrenaline might be needed to achieve ROSC. Intravenous administration (10-30 μg/kg) is recommended; however, if there is no intravenous access, a higher endotracheal dose (50-100 μg/kg) is needed. The safety and effectiveness of intraosseous adrenaline remain undetermined. Early and frequent dosing does not seem to be beneficial. In fact, negative hemodynamic effects have been observed, especially with doses ≥30 μg/kg intravenously. Little is known about adrenaline in birth asphyxia and in preterm infants, but observations indicate that hemodynamics and neurological outcomes may be impaired by adrenaline administration in these conditions. However, a causal relationship between adrenaline administration and outcomes cannot be established from the few available retrospective studies. Alternative vasoconstrictors have been investigated, but the evidence is scarce. CONCLUSION: More research is needed on the benefits and risks of adrenaline in asphyxia-induced bradycardia or cardiac arrest during perinatal transition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeonatologySame topicNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchFrench-language works237,207