Intramuscular versus intravenous epinephrine administration in a pediatric porcine model of cardiopulmonary resuscitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: American Heart Association Pediatric Life Support guidelines recommend epinephrine administration via intravenous (IV) or intraosseous (IO) route, with endotracheal (ET) administration admissible in the absence of IV/IO access. Establishing IV/IO/ET access can take several minutes and may require proficient skills and/or specific equipment, which may not be readily available in all situations. Alternatively, intramuscular (IM) epinephrine could be administered immediately. At present, there is limited data on the use of IM epinephrine in pediatric resuscitation. Aim: To compare IM with IV epinephrine in a pediatric porcine model of asphyxia-induced cardiac arrest. We hypothesized that in a pediatric animal model of cardiac arrest, IM epinephrine would result in a similar time to achieve return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) to IV epinephrine. Methods: = 5/group) and were resuscitated. Time to ROSC was recorded; blood plasma was collected throughout resuscitation for measurement of epinephrine concentration; heart rate, arterial blood pressure, carotid blood flow, cardiac function, and cerebral oxygenation were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. Results: Time to ROSC and the number of piglets that achieved ROSC were comparable between IM and IV epinephrine groups with either bradycardic or asystolic cardiac arrest. Conclusions: In a pediatric piglet model of bradycardic and asystolic cardiac arrest, administration of IM epinephrine resulted in similar resuscitative outcomes to IV epinephrine. Although immediate IM epinephrine injection may provide a first-line treatment option until subsequent IV/IO access is established, large, randomized trials are needed to confirm our finding before it can be used during pediatric resuscitation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".