Risk Factors Involved in Central-to-Radial Arterial Pressure Gradient During Cardiac Surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A central-to-radial arterial pressure gradient may occur after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), which, in some patients, may last for a prolonged time after CPB. Whenever there is a pressure gradient, the radial artery pressure measure may underestimate a more centrally measured systemic pressure, which may result in a misguided therapeutic strategy. It is clinically important to identify the risk factors that may predict the appearance of a central-to-radial pressure gradient, because more central sites of measurements might then be considered to monitor systemic arterial pressure in high-risk patients. The objective of this study was to assess preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for central-to-radial pressure gradient. METHODS: Seventy-three patients undergoing cardiac surgery using CPB were included in this prospective observational study. A significant central-to-radial arterial pressure gradient was defined as a difference of 25 mm Hg in systolic pressure or 10 mm Hg in mean arterial pressure for a minimum of 5 minutes. Preoperative data included demographics, presence of comorbidities, and medications. Intraoperative data included type of surgery, CPB and aortic clamping time, use of inotropic drugs, and vasodilators or vasopressors agents. The diameter of the radial and femoral artery was measured before the induction of anesthesia using B-mode ultrasonography. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients developed a central-to-radial arterial pressure gradient (45%). Patients with a significant pressure gradient had a smaller weight (71.0 ± 16.9 vs 79.3 ± 17.3 kg, P = 0.041), a smaller height (162.0 ± 9.6 vs 166.3 ± 8.6 cm, P = 0.047), a smaller radial artery diameter (0.24 ± 0.03 vs 0.29 ± 0.05 cm, P < 0.001), and were at a higher risk as determined by the Parsonnet score (30.3 ± 24.9 vs 17.0 ± 10.9, P = 0.007). In addition, a longer aortic clamping time (85.8 ± 51.0 vs 64.2 ± 29.3 minutes, P = 0.036), mitral and complex surgery (P = 0.007 and P = 0.017, respectively), and administration of vasopressin (P = 0.039) were identified as potential independent predictors of a central-to-radial pressure gradient. By using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the following independent risk factors were identified: Parsonnet score (odds ratio [OR], 1.076; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.027-1.127, P = 0.002), aortic clamping time >90 minutes (OR, 8.521; 95% CI, 1.917-37.870, P = 0.005), and patient height (OR, 0.933, 95% CI, 0.876-0.993, P = 0.029). The relative risk (RR) estimates remained statistically significant for the Parsonnet score and the aortic clamping time ≥90 minutes (RR, 1.010; 95% CI, 1.003-1.018, P = 0.009 and RR, 2.253; 95% CI, 1.475-3.443, P < 0.001 respectively) while showing a trend for patient height (RR, 0.974; 95% CI, 0.948-1.001, P = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: Central-to-radial gradients are common in cardiac surgery. The threshold for using a central site for blood pressure monitoring should be low in small, high-risk patients undergoing longer surgical interventions to avoid inappropriate administration of vasopressors and/or inotropic agents.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it