Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17659093›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2007

Vasopressin improves survival in a porcine model of abdominal vascular injury.

Karl H Stadlbauer, Horst G Wagner-Berger, Anette C Krismer, Wolfgang G Voelckel, Alfred Konigsrainer, Karl H Lindner, Volker Wenzel

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A Rationale for the Use of Norepinephrine after the Control of Bleeding in Hemorrhagic Shock?American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Modern resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock: what is on the horizon?European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2014
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Year in review 2007: Critical Care--shock.Critical care (London, England) · 2008
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Karl H StadlbauerDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria. karl-heinz.stadlbauer@i-med.ac.at
Horst G Wagner-Berger
Anette C Krismer
Wolfgang G Voelckel
Alfred Konigsrainer
Karl H Lindner
Volker Wenzel
Innsbruck Medical University · ATUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWe sought to determine and compare the effects of vasopressin, fluid resuscitation and saline placebo on haemodynamic variables and short-term survival in an abdominal vascular injury model with uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock in pigs.

methodsDuring general anaesthesia, a midline laparotomy was performed on 19 domestic pigs, followed by an incision (width about 5 cm and depth 0.5 cm) across the mesenterial shaft. When mean arterial blood pressure was below 20 mmHg, and heart rate had declined progressively, experimental therapy was initiated. At that point, animals were randomly assigned to receive vasopressin (0.4 U/kg; n = 7), fluid resuscitation (25 ml/kg lactated Ringer's and 25 ml/kg 3% gelatine solution; n = 7), or a single injection of saline placebo (n = 5). Vasopressin-treated animals were then given a continuous infusion of 0.08 U/kg per min vasopressin, whereas the remaining two groups received saline placebo at an equal rate of infusion. After 30 min of experimental therapy bleeding was controlled by surgical intervention, and further fluid resuscitation was performed. Thereafter, the animals were observed for an additional hour.

resultsAfter 68 +/- 19 min (mean +/- standard deviation) of uncontrolled bleeding, experimental therapy was initiated; at that time total blood loss and mean arterial blood pressure were similar between groups (not significant). Mean arterial blood pressure increased in both vasopressin-treated and fluid-resuscitated animals from about 15 mmHg to about 55 mmHg within 5 min, but afterward it decreased more rapidly in the fluid resuscitation group; mean arterial blood pressure in the placebo group never increased. Seven out of seven vasopressin-treated animals survived, whereas six out of seven fluid-resuscitated and five out of five placebo pigs died before surgical intervention was initiated (P < 0.0001).

conclusionVasopressin, but not fluid resuscitation or saline placebo, ensured short-term survival in this vascular injury model with uncontrolled haemorrhagic shock in sedated pigs.

Indexed as

Abdominal InjuriesAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFluid TherapyHemostaticsMesenteryRandom AllocationShock, HemorrhagicSodium ChlorideSus scrofaTreatment OutcomeVasopressinsHemostaticsSodium ChlorideVasopressins

Identifiers

PMID17659093
PMCPMC2206489
OpenAlexW2054791852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.