MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386260914 · doi:10.1093/jbcr/irad045.263

288 Propranolol Use in Adult Burn Patients: Results from a Multi-center Safety and Efficacy Trial

2023· article· en· W4386260914 on OpenAlexaff
David N. Herndon, Joshua Carson, Shawn P. Fagan, Celeste C. Finnerty, Kevin N Foster, Richard L. Gamelli, Nicole S. Gibran, Jeremy Goverman, David Harrington, Doug Hayden, James H. Holmes, Marc G. Jeschke, Matthew B. Klein, D.W. Mozingo, Cathryn F. Oldmixon, Tam N. Pham, David Shoenfeld, Charles E. Wade, Lucy Wibbenmeyer, Steven E. Wolf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Burn Care & Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypermetabolismPropranololPlaceboHeart rateAdverse effectAnesthesiaBurn centerClinical endpointInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialCardiologyBlood pressurePoison controlEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The hypermetabolic response induced by a large burn is associated with increased cardiac work, total body wasting, and impaired physical function, leading to delays in psychosocial recovery and reintegration into society, and persistence of chronic conditions. Modulation of this response could reduce long-term burn morbidity. Catecholamines drive burn-induced hypermetabolism, therefore clinicians have employed the non-selective beta-adrenergic receptor blocker propranolol to reduce cardiac stress and the hypermetabolic response. Here, in a masked, placebo-controlled study, we investigated the safety and efficacy of the administration of propranolol to adult burn patients during the acute hospitalization period. Methods Adults with large burns (n=157, mean 38 ± 15% TBSA) were enrolled at 13 participating centers. Subjects were randomized to receive placebo (n=75) or propranolol (n=82) with data collected for 72 and 79 subjects, respectively. Propranolol administration was initiated with an oral dose of 0.2 mg/kg dose and adjusted to decrease mean heart rate by 20%. The primary endpoint was effect on cardiac rate pressure product (CRPP), while the secondary endpoints included infections and survival. Adverse events were also tracked. Assessments were conducted between the time of consent and discharge, with a long-term follow-up visit occurring approximately 5 months post-burn on average. Results CRPP was significantly reduced with propranolol during the acute hospitalization period (p< 0.0001, Fig 1). The initial dose of propranolol adequately reduced heart rate in most patients. Infections were not different between cohorts. Cardiac complications (atrial arrhythmias, ventricular arrhythmias, cardiac arrest) occurred at similar rates for each group, as did additional complications (abdominal compartment syndrome, deep vein thromboses, pneumothorax, pulmonary embolus). Mortality was similar for both the placebo and propranolol cohorts. Post-discharge heart rates and blood pressures were similar in both groups at approximately 5 months following injury. Conclusions This study demonstrates that the short-term administration of propranolol to adults with large burns decreases CRPP without increasing complications, infections, or mortality. Furthermore, a safe dosing strategy was identified. This strategy may be effective for reducing acute cardiac stress and hypermetabolism. Future studies should focus on the effects of propranolol administration for longer periods, determining the effects on additional endpoints like the hypermetabolic response, pathologic scarring, long-term cardiac dysfunction, whether smaller burns benefit from the administration of propranolol.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Burn Care & ResearchSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207