MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033847585 · doi:10.3389/fped.2020.00262

Efficacy of Intravenous, Endotracheal, or Nasal Adrenaline Administration During Resuscitation of Near-Term Asphyxiated Lambs

2020· article· en· W3033847585 on OpenAlexafffund
Nils Thomas Songstad, Claus Klingenberg, Erin V. McGillick, Graeme R. Polglase, Valerie A. Zahra, Georg M. Schmölzer, Peter G. Davis, Stuart B. Hooper, Kelly J. Crossley

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Alexandra Hospital
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaUniversitetet i Tromsø
KeywordsMedicineAnesthesiaResuscitationEpinephrine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend administering intravenous (IV) adrenaline if bradycardia persists despite adequate ventilation and chest compressions (CC). Rapid IV access is challenging, but little evidence exists for other routes of administration. We compared IV, endotracheal (ET) and intranasal routes for adrenaline administration during resuscitation of asphyxiated newborn lambs. Study design: Near-term lambs (n=22) were delivered by caesarean section. Severe asphyxia was induced by clamping the umbilical cord while delaying ET-ventilation until carotid artery blood flow ceased. Following a 30 s sustained inflation and ventilation for 30 s, we commenced uncoordinated CC at 90/min. We randomised four groups receiving repeated treatment doses (Td) every 3rd minute of i) IV-Adrenaline (50 µg), ii) ET-Adrenaline (500 µg), iii) nasal-Adrenaline via an atomizer (500 µg) and iv) IV-saline. If return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was not achieved after three Tds by the assigned route, up to two rescue doses (Rd) of IV adrenaline were administered. Main outcome measures were achievement of ROSC and time from start of CC to ROSC, defined as heart rate >100/min, and mean carotid arterial pressure > 30 mmHg. Results: In the IV-Adrenaline group, 5/6 lambs achieved ROSC after the first Td, whereas 1 lamb required two Tds before achieving ROSC. In the ET-Adrenaline group, 1/5 lambs required one Td, 1 lamb required three Tds, 2 lambs required 2 Rds and 1 did not achieve ROSC. In the Nasal-Adrenaline group, 1/6 lambs required one Td, 2 required two Tds, whereas 3 lambs required either one (2 lambs) or two (1 lamb) Rds of adrenaline to achieve ROSC. In the IV-saline group, no lambs achieved ROSC until adrenaline Rds; 4/5 lambs required one Rd and 1 lamb required two Rds. Time to ROSC was shorter using IV-Adrenaline (2.4  0.4 minutes) compared with the ET-Adrenaline (10.3  2.4 minutes), Nasal-Adrenaline (9.2  2.2 minutes) and IV-saline (11.2  1.2 minutes). Conclusion: IV adrenaline had superior efficacy compared to nasal or ET administration. Nasal administration had similar effect as ET administration and is an easier route for early application. Nasal high-dose adrenaline administration for neonatal resuscitation merits further investigation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207