Evaluating the efficacy of endotracheal and intranasal epinephrine administration in severely asphyxic bradycardic newborn lambs: a randomised preclinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intravenous epinephrine administration is preferred during neonatal resuscitation, but may not always be rapidly administered due to lack of equipment or trained staff. We aimed to compare the time to return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and post-ROSC haemodynamics between intravenous, endotracheal (ET) and intranasal (IN) epinephrine in severely asphyxic, bradycardic newborn lambs. METHODS: After instrumentation, severe asphyxia (heart rate <60 bpm, blood pressure ~10 mm Hg) was induced by clamping the cord in near-term lambs. Resuscitation was initiated with ventilation followed by chest compressions. Lambs were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (0.02 mg/kg), ET (0.1 mg/kg) or IN (0.1 mg/kg) epinephrine. If ROSC was not achieved after three allocated treatment doses, rescue intravenous epinephrine was administered. After ROSC, lambs were ventilated for 60 min. RESULTS: ROSC in response to allocated treatment occurred in 8/8 (100%) intravenous lambs, 4/7 (57%) ET lambs and 5/7 (71%) IN lambs. Mean (SD) time to ROSC was 173 (32) seconds in the intravenous group, 360 (211) seconds in the ET group and 401 (175) seconds in the IN group (p<0.05 intravenous vs IN). Blood pressure and cerebral oxygen delivery were highest in the intravenous group immediately post-ROSC (p<0.05), whereas the ET group sustained the highest blood pressure over the 60-min observation (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study supports neonatal resuscitation guidelines, highlighting intravenous administration as the most effective route for epinephrine. ET and IN epinephrine should only be considered when intravenous access is delayed or not feasible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".