MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888812083 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202871

Low dose Intralipid resuscitation improves survival compared to ClinOleic in propranolol overdose in rats

2018· article· en· W2888812083 on OpenAlexafffund
Kimberly F. Macala, Rachel G. Khadaroo, Sareh Panahi, Ferrante S. Gragasin, Stephane L. Bourque

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPoisoning and overdose treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChildren's Hospital FoundationStollery Children’s Hospital FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWomen and Children's Health Research InstituteChildren's Health Research Institute
KeywordsPropranololMedicineResuscitationAnesthesiaHemodynamicsClinical endpointPharmacologyClinical trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Medication overdose is a prevalent issue and despite mixed reports of efficacy, the use of intravenous lipid emulsions, notably Intralipid®, for the management of toxicity from lipid-soluble drugs is becoming increasingly prevalent. Whether alternative lipid emulsion formulations have similar efficacy for resuscitation compared to Intralipid is not known. Here, we compared the efficacy of Intralipid and ClinOleic® for resuscitation following overdose with the lipid-soluble beta-adrenergic antagonist propranolol. METHODS: Male Sprague-Dawley rats (age 3-4 months) were anesthetized with isoflurane and instrumented for direct hemodynamic assessments. In Study One, rats (n = 22) were pre-treated with Intralipid 20% (n = 12) or ClinOleic 20% (n = 10) to determine whether the hemodynamic effects of propranolol could be prevented. In Study Two, rats were randomly assigned to Intralipid 20% (1, 2, or 3 mL/kg IV, n = 21) or ClinOleic 20% (1, 2, or 3 mL/kg IV, n = 20) resuscitation groups following propranolol overdose (15 mg/kg IV). In Study Three the effect of Intralipid 20% (1 mL/kg IV, n = 3) and ClinOleic 20% (1 mL/kg IV, n = 3) in the absence of propranolol was investigated. The primary endpoint in all studies was survival time (up to a maximum of 120 minutes), and secondary endpoints were time to achieve 50%, 75%, and 90% of baseline hemodynamic parameters. RESULTS: In Study One, pre-treatment with Intralipid prior to propranolol administration resulted in prolonged survival compared to pre-treatment with ClinOleic at low doses (1 mL/kg; P = 0.002), but provided no benefit at higher doses (3 mL/kg; P = 0.95). In Study Two, Intralipid conferred a survival advantage over ClinOleic, with 18/21 rats surviving 120 minutes in the Intralipid group and only 4/20 survivors in the ClinOleic group (P<0.0001). Median survival times (with interquartile ranges) for rats treated with Intralipid, and ClinOleic, and saline were 120 (80.5-120) min, 21.5 (3.25-74.5) min, and 1 (0.25-2.5) min respectively (P<0.001). Only 3/21 rats in the Intralipid group survived less than 30 minutes, whereas 12/20 ClinOleic treated rats had survival times of less than 30 minutes. The number of rats achieving 75%, and 90% of baseline mean arterial pressure was also greater in the Intralipid group (P<0.05 for both values). Treatment in Study Three did not alter survival times. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose Intralipid (1, 2, or 3 mL/kg IV) confers a survival advantage up to 120 minutes post-propranolol overdose (the end-point of the experiment) and better hemodynamic recovery compared to ClinOleic (1, 2, or 3 mL/kg IV) in rats with propranolol overdose. As health care centres choose alternate intravenous lipid emulsions, limited availability of Intralipid could impact efficacy and success of overdose treatment for lipid-soluble drugs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPoisoning and overdose treatmentsFrench-language works237,207