Hemodynamic Tolerance to IV Clonidine Infusion in the PICU*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clonidine is an antihypertensive drug used for analgosedation in the PICU. Lack of reliable data on its hemodynamic tolerance limits its use. This study explores the hemodynamic tolerance of IV clonidine infusion in a broad population of children with high severity of disease. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: A tertiary and quaternary referral PICU. PATIENTS: Critically ill children age 0-18 years old who received an IV clonidine infusion for analgosedation of at least 1 hour. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary endpoints were the prevalences of bradycardia and hypotension. Secondary endpoints were changes in heart rate, blood pressure, Vasoactive-Inotropic Score, COMFORT Behavior score (a sedation scoring scale), and body temperature during the infusion. The association of bradycardia with other hemodynamic variables was explored, as well as potential risk factors for severe bradycardia. One-hundred eighty-six children (median age, 12.9 mo [interquartile range, 3.5-60.6 mo]) receiving a maximum median clonidine infusion of 0.7 µg/kg/hr (interquartile range, 0.3-1.5) were included. Severe bradycardia and systolic hypotension occurred in 72 patients (40.2%) and 105 patients (58%), respectively. Clonidine-associated bradycardia was hemodynamically well tolerated, as it was not related with hypotension and the need for vasoactive drugs decreased in parallel with a sedation score guided clonidine infusion rate increase. Younger age was the only identified risk factor for clonidine-associated bradycardia. CONCLUSIONS: Although administration of clonidine is often associated with bradycardia and hypotension, these complications do not seem clinically significant in a mixed PICU population with a high degree of disease severity. Clonidine may have a vasoactive-inotropic sparing effect.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".