MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012626074 · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000000144

Outcomes and Complications of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Acute Liver Failure

2013· article· en· W2012626074 on OpenAlexaff
Constantine Karvellas, Oren K. Fix, Holly Battenhouse, Valerie Durkalski, Corron Sanders, William M. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsMedicineIntracranial pressureIntracranial pressure monitoringHepatic encephalopathyEncephalopathyInternal medicineBlood pressureHypertonic salineAnesthesiaSurgeryCirrhosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine if intracranial pressure monitor placement in patients with acute liver failure is associated with significant clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: Academic liver transplant centers comprising the U.S. Acute Liver Failure Study Group. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill patients with acute liver failure presenting with grade III/IV hepatic encephalopathy (n = 629) prospectively enrolled between March 2004 and August 2011. INTERVENTION: Intracranial pressure monitored (n = 140) versus nonmonitored controls (n = 489). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Intracranial pressure monitored patients were younger than controls (35 vs 43 yr, p < 0.001) and more likely to be on renal replacement therapy (52% vs 38%, p = 0.003). Of 87 intracranial pressure monitored patients with detailed information, 44 (51%) had evidence of intracranial hypertension (intracranial pressure > 25 mm Hg) and overall 21-day mortality was higher in patients with intracranial hypertension (43% vs 23%, p = 0.05). During the first 7 days, intracranial pressure monitored patients received more intracranial hypertension-directed therapies (mannitol, 56% vs 21%; hypertonic saline, 14% vs 7%; hypothermia, 24% vs 10%; p < 0.03 for each). Forty-one percent of intracranial pressure monitored patients received liver transplant (vs 18% controls; p < 0.001). Overall 21-day mortality was similar (intracranial pressure monitored 33% vs controls 38%, p = 0.24). Where data were available, hemorrhagic complications were rare in intracranial pressure monitored patients (4 of 56 [7%]; three died). When stratifying by acetaminophen status and adjusting for confounders, intracranial pressure monitor placement did not impact 21-day mortality in acetaminophen patients (p = 0.89). However, intracranial pressure monitor was associated with increased 21-day mortality in nonacetaminophen patients (odds ratio, ~ 3.04; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: In intracranial pressure monitored patients with acute liver failure, intracranial hypertension is commonly observed. The use of intracranial pressure monitor in acetaminophen acute liver failure did not confer a significant 21-day mortality benefit, whereas in nonacetaminophen acute liver failure, it may be associated with worse outcomes. Hemorrhagic complications from intracranial pressure monitor placement were uncommon and cannot account for mortality trends. Although our results cannot conclusively confirm or refute the utility of intracranial pressure monitoring in patients with acute liver failure, patient selection and ancillary assessments of cerebral blood flow likely have a significant role. Prospective studies would be required to conclusively account for confounding by illness severity and transplant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations139
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207