Effect of Vasopressin on Systemic and Pulmonary Hemodynamics in Neonates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Despite its increasing use in neonates, the literature on the use of vasopressin (VP) in neonates is limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the systemic and pulmonary effects of VP in neonates and to assess its safety among them. Study Design This retrospective study enrolled all neonates in two level III neonatal intensive care units in Winnipeg, Manitoba, who had received VP therapy between 2011 and 2016. Infants with congenital malformations/chromosomal disorders were excluded. The changes in cardiovascular and pulmonary parameters were collected from patient charts. The primary outcome was the mean blood pressure (MBP) post-VP initiation. Secondary outcomes included systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), vasoactive inotropic score (VIS), pH, urine output, lactate, base deficit (BD), mean airway pressure (MAP), and oxygen requirement. Results A total of 33 episodes from 26 neonates were analyzed. The postnatal age at VP initiation was 14 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 4–25), and the median starting dose was 0.3 mU/kg/min (IQR: 0.2–0.5). MBP improved significantly after VP initiation from 28 to 39 mm Hg 24 hours after VP initiation (p < 0.001). Similar changes are observed with SBP and DBP. VIS declined from 15 to 6 at 24 hours, while pH, lactate, BD, and oxygen requirement improved significantly. While urine output marginally improved, there were no changes to MAP 24 hours post-VP initiation. Hyponatremia was observed in 21 episodes (64%) and severe hyponatremia in 7 episodes (33%). Conclusion VP appears to be a promising rescue therapy in catecholamine resistant shock or refractory pulmonary hypertension in neonates.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".