MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731321856 · doi:10.1093/bja/aex165

Association between preoperative pulse pressure and perioperative myocardial injury: an international observational cohort study of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery

2017· article· en· W2731321856 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Abbott, Rupert M. Pearse, Andrew Archbold, Andrew Wragg, Elisa Kam, Tahania Ahmad, AA KHAN, Edyta Niebrzegowska, Reitze Rodseth, P.J. Devereaux, Gareth L. Ackland

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Anaesthesia · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicinePulse pressurePerioperativeBlood pressureInternal medicineCardiologyCohortPopulationCohort studyConfidence intervalConfoundingOdds ratioAnesthesiaSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The management of elevated blood pressure before non-cardiac surgery remains controversial. Pulse pressure is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular morbidity in the general population than systolic blood pressure alone. We hypothesized that preoperative pulse pressure was associated with perioperative myocardial injury. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the Vascular Events in Non-cardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation (VISION) international cohort study. Participants were aged ≥45 yr and undergoing non-cardiac surgery at 12 hospitals in eight countries. The primary outcome was myocardial injury, defined using serum troponin concentration, within 30 days after surgery. The sample was stratified into quintiles by preoperative pulse pressure. Multivariable logistic regression analysis explored associations between pulse pressure and myocardial injury. We accounted for potential confounding by systolic blood pressure and other co-morbidities known to be associated with postoperative cardiovascular complications. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and ninety-one of 15 057 (7.9%) patients sustained myocardial injury, which was more frequent amongst patients in the highest two preoperative pulse pressure quintiles {63-75 mm Hg, risk ratio (RR) 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.28], P =0.03; >75 mm Hg, RR 1.15 [95% CI: 1.03-1.29], P =0.02}. After adjustment for systolic blood pressure, preoperative pulse pressure remained the dominant predictor of myocardial injury (63-75 mm Hg, RR 1.20 [95% CI: 1.05-1.37], P <0.01; >75 mm Hg, RR 1.25 [95% CI: 1.06-1.48], P <0.01). Systolic blood pressure >160 mm Hg was not associated with myocardial injury in the absence of pulse pressure >62 mm Hg (RR 0.67 [95% CI: 0.30-1.44], P =0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative pulse pressure >62 mm Hg was associated with myocardial injury, independent of systolic blood pressure. Elevated pulse pressure may be a useful clinical sign to guide strategies to reduce perioperative myocardial injury.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations61
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of AnaesthesiaSame topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesFrench-language works237,207