Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Two comparable series of 21 patients who had elective Caesarean section had general anaesthesia induced by thiopentone sodium 4.53 (SD 0.65) mg/kg or propofol 2.15 (SD 0.26) mg/kg. Maintenance was similar for both groups. Blood pressure was lower in the propofol group during the induction-delivery interval. Umbilical/maternal vein ratios for thiopentone and propofol were 8.5 and 7.2 respectively. Infant wellbeing as judged by Apgar score and cord blood analysis showed little difference between the two induction agents. Factors associated with uterine relaxation and bleeding were similar in the two groups.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1989.tb09263.x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!