Terlipressin/adrenaline is better than adrenaline alone in a porcine model of prolonged ventricular fibrillation A randomized controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Vasopressors have been routinely used in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Recent data show that terlipressin may restore blood pressure in asphyxial and prolonged arrests but its potential role in ventricular fibrillation (VF) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to compare coronary (CorPP) and cerebral (CPP) perfusion pressures achieved by terlipressin/adrenaline versus placebo/adrenaline in VF.Methods. Fourteen domestic pigs were randomly assigned into group A and B. After 5 min of untreated VF, compression-only resuscitation was applied for 10 min, followed by advanced life support. Terlipressin in a single-dose of 30 g·kg-1 was added to the first dose of adrenaline in group A, while placebo was given in group B. CorPP and CPP were calcula-ted from right atrial, aortic and intracerebral pressures. Data were analyzed using repeated measurements ANOVA and a Fisher´s protected LSD post hoc test.Results. Terlipressin/adrenaline maintained CorPP above 10 mmHg for 17.7 min longer than adrenaline alone (P=0.003) unable to prevent refractory hypotension. CorPP (mean±SD) measured at 35, 45, and 55 min after the onset of VF was 12 ± 4, 11 ± 6, and 10 ± 5 mmHg in the terlipressin group A; and 6 ± 4, 1 ± 5, and -1 ± 5 mmHg in placebo group B (P=0.03, <0.001, and <0.001). CPP measured at the same times was 23 ± 7, 20 ± 7, and 23 ± 7 mmHg in group A; and 13 ± 7, 6 ± 5, and 6 ± 7 mmHg in group B (P=0.01, <0.001, and <0.001).Conclusion. The study showed that a single dose of terlipressin, when added to adrenaline, was effective for achievement of higher vital organ perfusion pressures compared to adrenaline alone.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".