Hydrocortisone and arginine vasopressin in post-resuscitation shock: the HYVAPRESS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute circulatory failure after successfull resuscitation of cardiac arrest remains challenging and multifactorial. As the main driver of early mortality after restoration of spontaneous circulation, its therapeutic management essentially relies on fluids administration and vasopressive support using noradrenaline. Data also support the potential impact of a hormonal defect in this setting. Steroids substitution as well as argini-vasopressin treatment should be evaluated in these patients. Methods: The HYVAPRESS trial is a 2x2 factorial randomized placebo-controlled multicentric trial evaluating the effect of both hydrocortisone and arginin-vasopressin in successfully resuscitated (inhospital and out-of-hospital) cardiac arrest patients suffering an acute circulatory failure in the first 24 h after restoration of spontaneous circulation. The main outcome will be the favourable neurological outcome assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS). 380 patients will be included, i.e. 95 patients in each arm, allowing the detection of a 15% difference in mortality using a power of 80% and an alpha-risk of 5%. Discussion: Assessing therapeutics in the hemodynamic failure in post -cardiac arrest patients is challenging as the mortality is very high. Besides the vasopressive support, few investigation have been led so far to improve the management of these patients. While hydrocortisone and arginin-vasopressive have been evaluated in septic shock patients, data are lacking in this very specific subgroup of patients suffering from a very high mortality. Enrollement is ongoing. Trial registration: Clinical Trials NCT04591990, registered on 2020, October 19th.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".