Characteristics and Factors Associated With the Mortality of Hypotensive Patients Attending the Emergency Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of hypotension in emergency departments (EDs) is approximately 1-2%, but is associated with a mortality rate of 8-15%. There has never been a study in Thailand examining the epidemiology or the risk factors for early mortality of patients presenting with hypotension in the ED. Therefore, this study aimed to define the characteristics, mortality rate within 48 h and associated factors of hypotensive patients at ED. METHODS: Data of patients with hypotension attending the ED of Thammasat University Hospital (TUH) were retrospectively studied. RESULTS: Of the 9,000 patients seen in the TUH ED, 233 were hypotensive for a prevalence of 2.5%. Patients were old, with a mean age of 61 ± 20 years. The most common presenting symptom was fever, and sepsis was the most common cause of hypotension. The mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 78 ± 8 mm Hg. Isotonic crystalloid volume resuscitation in first hour was 758 mL (interquartile range (IQR), 500 - 1,000) and the total volume to achieve a mean arterial pressure (MAP) ≥ 65 mm Hg was 1,142 mL (IQR, 500 - 1,500). Twenty-seven percent of patients needed vasopressor support. Nineteen patients died ≤ 48 h, giving a case fatality rate of 8.2%. Three independent factors associated with 48-h mortality were initial pulse rate > 100 beats/min (odds ratio (OR), 4.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05 - 16.88; P = 0.042), diagnosis of shock (OR, 13.74 (1.49 - 126.61); P = 0.021) and recurrent hypotension (OR, 6.91 (1.54 - 30.99); P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Hypotension in the ED was common and associated with high mortality rate. Better triage, patient monitoring and treatment may improve outcomes in these patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".