Influence of a rapid volume infusion during advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation of severely asphyxic near-term lambs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives We assessed whether an infusion of normal saline volume during chest compression resuscitation, compared with standard intravenous epinephrine, would increase diastolic blood pressure, achieve return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and maintain physiological stability after ROSC. Methods Near-term fetal lambs were asphyxiated until mean blood pressure reached 10–12 mm Hg and heart rate was <60 beats per minute. Resuscitation was commenced with ventilation and chest compressions. Lambs were randomly allocated to: standard care (20 µg/kg intravenous epinephrine; n=8) or volume infusion (20 mL/kg over 2 min; n=10). After two allocated treatment doses, rescue intravenous epinephrine was administered if ROSC was not achieved by 8 min. Lambs achieving ROSC were monitored for 60 min. Cerebral histology was assessed for micro-haemorrhages. Results Blood pressure and cerebral blood flow during chest compressions was higher in volume infusion lambs. ROSC occurred in 8/8 standard care lambs. Of the volume infusion lambs, 5/10 achieved ROSC in response to allocated treatment, and despite increased diastolic pressure, 3/10 required rescue epinephrine and 2/10 did not achieve ROSC. For 2 min after ROSC, blood pressure, heart rate and arterial partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2 ) was higher in standard care lambs compared with volume infusion lambs. The number of periventricular white matter micro-haemorrhages was higher in volume infusion lambs. Conclusions Volume infusion with saline improved blood pressure stability during and after cardiopulmonary resuscitation but was inferior to intravenous epinephrine in achieving ROSC and reducing cerebral micro-haemorrhages. The use of volume infusion during resuscitation in moderately asphyxiated euvolaemic newborns is unlikely to have clinical benefit.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".