Effects of Intramuscular Vasopressin on Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics in Healthy Neonatal Piglets: A Dose–Response Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neonatal resuscitation guidelines recommend the use of the vasopressor epinephrine during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR); however, vasopressin may be a potential alternative. Successful neonatal CPR requires rapid vasopressor administration, but the current guideline-recommended routes can take several minutes to establish and require substantial skill and/or training. The intramuscular (IM) route provides rapid drug administration and does not require special skills, training, or equipment. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare two doses of IM vasopressin to intravenous (IV) vasopressin in a healthy neonatal piglet model to examine the hemodynamic and pharmacokinetic effects. METHODS: = 5/group; 1-3 days of age) were anesthetized, intubated via a tracheostomy, and randomized to 4 IU/kg IM vasopressin, 8 IU/kg IM vasopressin, or 0.4 IU/kg IV vasopressin. Various 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: The 4 IU/kg IM vasopressin dose was ineffective in producing systemic changes in hemodynamics or cardiac function as it was poorly absorbed. The 8 IU/kg IM vasopressin dose had comparable results to IV vasopressin and was rapidly distributed to systemic circulation. CONCLUSIONS: The higher IM vasopressin dose of 8 IU/kg is effective in increasing systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".