A Direct Comparison between Norepinephrine and Phenylephrine for Augmenting Spinal Cord Perfusion in a Porcine Model of Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current clinical guidelines recommend elevating the mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) to increase spinal cord perfusion in patients with acute spinal cord injury (SCI). This is typically achieved with vasopressors such as norepinephrine (NE) and phenylephrine (PE). These drugs differ in their pharmacological properties and potentially have different effects on spinal cord blood flow (SCBF), oxygenation (PO2), and downstream metabolism after injury. Using a porcine model of thoracic SCI, we evaluated how these vasopressors influenced intraparenchymal SCBF, PO2, hydrostatic pressure, and metabolism within the spinal cord adjacent to the injury site. Yorkshire pigs underwent a contusion/compression SCI at T10 and were randomized to receive either NE or PE for MAP elevation of 20 mm Hg, or no MAP augmentation. Prior to injury, a combined SCBF/PO2 sensor, a pressure sensor, and a microdialysis probe were inserted into the spinal cord adjacent to T10 at two locations: a “proximal” site and a “distal” site, 2 mm and 22 mm from the SCI, respectively. At the proximal site, NE and PE resulted in little improvement in SCBF during cord compression. Following decompression, NE resulted in increased SCBF and PO2, whereas decreased levels were observed for PE. However, both NE and PE were associated with a gradual decrease in the lactate to pyruvate (L/P) ratio after decompression. PE was associated with greater hemorrhage through the injury site than that in control animals. Combined, our results suggest that NE promotes better restoration of blood flow and oxygenation than PE in the traumatically injured spinal cord, thus providing a physiological rationale for selecting NE over PE in the hemodynamic management of acute SCI.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".