Continuous venovenous hemodialysis may be effective in digoxin removal in digoxin toxicity: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digoxin is a cardiac glycoside that is used for the treatment of heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Besides its careful close follow-up, toxicity affects nearly 1% of congestive heart failure patients. Cessation of the drug, appropriate electrolyte and rhythm control and digoxin-Fab antibody are the mainstay for toxicity treatment in these patients. As known, hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis are not effective by the means of digoxin removal. We present a 66-year-old patient who admitted to hospital with digoxin toxicity and severe acute kidney injury. The patient was treated with continuous venovenous hemodialysis because of her hypervolemia, hyperkalemia, cardiac instability, and the thought of probable decrease in digoxin levels concerning the continuous nature of solute clearance. Without the treatment using digoxin-specific Fab antibodies, the patient's digoxin level was decreased successfully with continuous venovenous hemodialysis. In conclusion, continuous venovenous hemodialysis may be a treatment option in digoxin toxicity especially those who suffer from severe renal dysfunction and cannot access digoxin antidote.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".