MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 10437: Epinephrine in Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-blinded, Placebo-Controlled Experimental Trial

2015· article· en· W2887316704 on OpenAlexaffabout
Steve Lin, Matthew L. Sundermann, Paul Dorian, Sarah Fink, Henry R. Halperin, Alex Kiss, Allison C Koller, Brendan M. McCracken, Laurie J. Morrison, Robert W. Neumar, James T. Niemann, Andrew Ramadeen, David D. Salcido, Mohamad Hakam Tiba, Scott T. Youngquist, Menekam Zviman, James J. Menegazzi

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDouble blindedEpinephrinePlaceboRandomized controlled trialCardiopulmonary resuscitationAnesthesiaInternal medicineCardiologyResuscitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Epinephrine is universally used in cardiac arrest primarily to increase coronary perfusion pressure (CPP) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The effect of different modes of epinephrine administration and the persistence of effect with repeated doses are not known. Methods: We conducted a preclinical, randomized, multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled experimental trial of 45 swine from five different laboratories (Ann Arbor, MI; Baltimore, MD; Los Angeles, CA; Pittsburgh, PA; Toronto, ON) using a standard treatment protocol. Ventricular fibrillation was induced and left untreated for 6 min before starting continuous CPR, which included mechanical chest compressions (100/min) and manual ventilations using a bag-valve-mask with 100% O2 (10 breaths/min). After 2 min of CPR onset, nine animals from each lab were centrally randomized to one of three treatment arms: 1) Continuous IV epinephrine infusion (0.00375mg/kg/min) for 12 min and placebo IV normal saline (NS) boluses every 4 min, 2) Three IV epinephrine boluses (0.015mg/kg) every 4 min and placebo IV NS infusion, or 3) Placebo NS infusion and boluses. The primary outcome was mean CPP during the drug therapy period (2-14 minutes after CPR onset). Differences in CPP were analyzed using repeated measures regression modeling. Results: There was no statistical difference in mean minute CPP (mmHg) between the three groups: 14.4±6.8 (infusion), 16.9±5.9 (bolus), and 14.4±5.5 (placebo) (p=NS). Repeated bolus doses of epinephrine caused transient increases in CPP that tended to peak at ~2 min after drug administration (Figure). Conclusion: Standard dose epinephrine, whether given by infusion or repeated boluses during CPR, did not significantly improve average CPP over time compared to placebo. Tachyphylaxis to epinephrine may occur regardless of mode of administration. This study raises important questions about optimal epinephrine dosing and administration strategy.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→