Inhaled milrinone in cardiac surgical patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial of jet vs. mesh nebulization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inhaled milrinone administered before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) reduces the severity of pulmonary hypertension during cardiac surgery. However, milrinone pharmacokinetics has not been determined for this route of administration. The objective of this study was to investigate inhaled milrinone dosing in vitro and early plasma concentrations in vivo after jet and mesh nebulization. Twelve pulmonary hypertensive patients scheduled for cardiac surgery were randomized to receive milrinone (5 mg) by inhalation before CPB using a jet or mesh nebulizer. In vitro experiments were conducted to determine the inhaled dose delivered with either jet or mesh nebulization. In vivo experiments involved hemodynamic monitoring and blood samples drawn from patients for the first 15 min after the end of inhalation to determine early plasma concentrations. After mesh nebulization, the mean in vitro inhaled dose was almost 3-fold higher compared to jet nebulization (46.4% vs 16.6% for mesh and jet, respectively; mean difference, 29.8%; 95% CI, 14.1 to 45.5; P = 0.006). Consistent with this, the early plasma concentrations in vivo were also 2-3 fold higher after mesh nebulization (P = 0.002-0.005). After inhalation (jet or mesh nebulization), milrinone early plasma concentrations remained within the therapeutic range. No systemic hypotension was reported in our patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".