ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2018
Fluid sparing and norepinephrine use in a rat model of resuscitated haemorrhagic shock: end-organ impact.
Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Norepinephrine and Vasopressin in Hemorrhagic Shock: A Focus on Renal Hemodynamics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Effect of Early versus Delayed Use of Norepinephrine on Short-Term Outcomes in Patients with Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2023Article
- Association of Early Norepinephrine Administration With 24-Hour Mortality Among Patients With Blunt Trauma and Hemorrhagic Shock.JAMA network open · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHaemostasis and correction of hypovolemia are the pillars of early haemorrhage shock (HS) management. Vasopressors, which are not recommended as first-line therapy, are an alternative to aggressive fluid resuscitation, but data informing the risks and benefits of vasopressor therapy as fluid-sparing strategy is lacking. We aimed to study its impact on end organs, in the setting of a haemodynamic response to the initial volume resuscitation.
methodsFollowing controlled HS (60 min) induced by blood withdrawal, under anaesthesia and ventilation, male Wistar rats (N = 10 per group) were randomly assigned to (1) sham, (2) HS with fluid resuscitation only [FR] and (3) HS with fluid resuscitation to restore haemodynamic (MAP: mean arterial pressure) then norepinephrine [FR+NE]. After a reperfusion time (60 min) during which MAP was maintained with fluid or norepinephrine, equipment was removed and animals were observed for 24 h (N = 5) or 72 h (N = 5) before euthanasia. Besides haemodynamic parameters, physiological markers (creatinine, lactate, pH, PaO
resultsNo difference was present in MAP levels during HS or reperfusion between the two resuscitation strategies. FR required significantly more fluid than FR+NE (183% vs 106% of bleed-out volume; p = 0.003), when plasma lactate increased similarly. Xanthine oxidase was equally activated in both HS groups. After FR+NE, creatinine peaked higher but was similar in all groups at later time points. FR+NE enhanced MPO in the lung, when Claudin-4 increased significantly after FR. In the brain amygdala, FR provoked more caspase 3 activity, MPO and microglial activation (Iba1 expression).
conclusionOrgan resuscitation after controlled HS can be assured with lesser fluid administration followed by vasopressors administration, without signs of dysoxia or worse evolution. Limiting fluid administration could benefit the brain and seems not to have a negative impact on the lung or kidney.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.