MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401322316 · doi:10.1186/s40635-024-00650-7

Apelin-13 administration allows for norepinephrine sparing in a rat model of cecal ligation and puncture-induced septic shock

2024· article· en· W4401322316 on OpenAlexafffund
William Salvail, Dany Salvail, Frédéric Chagnon, Olivier Lesur

Bibliographic record

VenueIntensive Care Medicine Experimental · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicApelin-related biomedical research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineSeptic shockApelinNorepinephrineLigationAnesthesiaAdministration (probate law)Shock (circulatory)Rat modelPharmacologySepsisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Infusion of exogenous catecholamines (i.e., norepinephrine [NE] and dobutamine) is a recommended treatment for septic shock with myocardial dysfunction. However, sustained catecholamine infusion is linked to cardiac toxicity and impaired responsiveness. Several pre-clinical and clinical studies have investigated the use of alternative vasopressors in the treatment of septic shock, with limited benefits and generally no effect on mortality. Apelin-13 (APL-13) is an endogenous positive inotrope and vasoactive peptide and has been demonstrated cardioprotective with vasomodulator and sparing life effects in animal models of septic shock. A primary objective of this study was to evaluate the NE-sparing effect of APL-13 infusion in an experimental sepsis-induced hypotension. METHODS: For this goal, sepsis was induced by cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) in male rats and the arterial blood pressure (BP) monitored continuously via a carotid catheter. Monitoring, fluid resuscitation and experimental treatments were performed on conscious animals. Based on pilot assays, normal saline fluid resuscitation (2.5 mL/Kg/h) was initiated 3 h post-CLP and maintained up to the endpoint. Thus, titrated doses of NE, with or without fixed-doses of APL-13 or the apelin receptor antagonist F13A co-infusion were started when 20% decrease of systolic BP (SBP) from baseline was achieved, to restore SBP values ≥ 115 ± 1.5 mmHg (baseline average ± SEM). RESULTS: A reduction in mean NE dose was observed with APL-13 but not F13A co-infusion at pre-determined treatment time of 4.5 ± 0.5 h (17.37 ± 1.74 µg/Kg/h [APL-13] vs. 25.64 ± 2.61 µg/Kg/h [Control NE] vs. 28.60 ± 4.79 µg/Kg/min [F13A], P = 0.0491). A 60% decrease in NE infusion rate over time was observed with APL-13 co-infusion, (p = 0.008 vs NE alone), while F13A co-infusion increased the NE infusion rate over time by 218% (p = 0.003 vs NE + APL-13). Associated improvements in cardiac function are likely mediated by (i) enhanced left ventricular end-diastolic volume (0.18 ± 0.02 mL [Control NE] vs. 0.30 ± 0.03 mL [APL-13], P = 0.0051), stroke volume (0.11 ± 0.01 mL [Control NE] vs. 0.21 ± 0.01 mL [APL-13], P < 0.001) and cardiac output (67.57 ± 8.63 mL/min [Control NE] vs. 112.20 ± 8.53 mL/min [APL-13], P = 0.0036), and (ii) a reduced effective arterial elastance (920.6 ± 81.4 mmHg/mL/min [Control NE] vs. 497.633.44 mmHg/mL/min. [APL-13], P = 0.0002). APL-13 administration was also associated with a decrease in lactate levels compared to animals only receiving NE (7.08 ± 0.40 [Control NE] vs. 4.78 ± 0.60 [APL-13], P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: APL-13 exhibits NE-sparing benefits in the treatment of sepsis-induced shock, potentially reducing deleterious effects of prolonged exogenous catecholamine administration.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntensive Care Medicine ExperimentalSame topicApelin-related biomedical researchFrench-language works237,207