Dose-Related Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Effects of Intramuscular Epinephrine in Healthy Neonatal Piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epinephrine is currently the only vasopressor recommended during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Rapid vasopressor administration is critical during CPR; however, establishing vascular access can take several minutes and requires extensive skills and/or training. The intramuscular (IM) route provides rapid drug administration and does not require special skills, training, or equipment. We aimed to compare various doses of IM epinephrine to intravascular (IV) epinephrine in a healthy neonatal piglet model. METHOD: Fifteen newborn piglets (1-3 days of age) underwent anesthesia, intubation via a tracheostomy, and randomization to 0.02 mg/kg IM epinephrine, 0.1 mg/kg IM epinephrine, or 0.02 mg/kg IV epinephrine. Hemodynamic and cardiac function parameters were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. Blood was collected prior to drug administration and throughout the experiment for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis. RESULTS: Dose-dependent changes in hemodynamic and cardiac function parameters were observed following IM epinephrine administration. Greater changes were observed with 0.1 mg/kg IM epinephrine, while there were little to no changes with 0.02 mg/kg IM epinephrine. Pharmacokinetic parameters were not different between 0.02 mg/kg IV epinephrine or 0.1 mg/kg IM epinephrine. CONCLUSIONS: IM epinephrine dose of 0.1 mg/kg was more effective in producing systemic hemodynamic and cardiac function changes compared to the lower IM dose 0.02 mg/kg.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".