Comparison of various vasopressin doses to epinephrine during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in asphyxiated neonatal piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend epinephrine for cardiac arrest. Vasopressin might be an alternative during asphyxial cardiac arrest. We aimed to compare vasopressin and epinephrine on incidence and time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in asphyxiated newborn piglets. DESIGN/METHODS: Newborn piglets (n = 8/group) were anesthetized, intubated, instrumented, and exposed to 30 min of normocapnic hypoxia, followed by asphyxia and asystolic cardiac arrest. Piglets were randomized to 0.2, 0.4, or 0.8IU/kg vasopressin, or 0.02 mg/kg epinephrine. Hemodynamic parameters were continuously measured. RESULTS: Median (IQR) time to ROSC was 172(103-418)s, 157(100-413)s, 122(93-289)s, and 276(117-480)s for 0.2, 0.4, 0.8IU/kg vasopressin, and 0.02 mg/kg epinephrine groups, respectively (p = 0.59). The number of piglets that achieved ROSC was 6(75%), 6(75%), 7(88%), and 5(63%) for 0.2, 0.4, 0.8IU/kg vasopressin, and 0.02 mg/kg epinephrine, respectively (p = 0.94). The epinephrine group had a 60% (3/5) rate of post-ROSC survival compared to 83% (5/6), 83% (5/6), and 57% (4/7) in the 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8IU/kg vasopressin groups, respectively (p = 0.61). CONCLUSION: Time to and incidence of ROSC were not different between all vasopressin dosages and epinephrine. However, non-significantly lower time to ROSC and higher post-ROSC survival in vasopressin groups warrant further investigation. IMPACT: Time to and incidence of ROSC were not statistically different between all vasopressin dosages and epinephrine. Non-significantly lower time to ROSC and higher post-ROSC survival in vasopressin-treated piglets. Overall poorer hemodynamic recovery following ROSC in epinephrine piglets compared to vasopressin groups. Human neonatal clinical trials examining the efficacy of vasopressin during asphyxial cardiac arrest will begin recruitment soon.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".