Clevidipine use after first-line treatment failure for perioperative hypertension in neurosurgical patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perioperative hypertension is a common occurrence in the neurosurgical population, where 60% to 90% of the patients require treatment for blood pressure (BP) control. Nicardipine and clevidipine have been commonly used in neurocritical settings. This retrospective, observational study assessed the effectivity of the administration of clevidipine after nicardipine treatment failure in neurosurgical patients.We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of adult patients who were admitted to our neurosurgical department and received clevidipine after nicardipine treatment failure for the control of BP. The primary effectivity outcome was the comparison of the percentage of time spent at targeted SBP goals during nicardipine and clevidipine administration, respectively.A total of 12 adult patients treated with clevidipine after nicardipine treatment failure and were included for data analysis. The median number of events that required dose-titration was 20.5 vs 17 during the administration of nicardipine and clevidipine, respectively (P = .534). The median percentage of time spent at targeted SBP goal was 76.2% during the administration of nicardipine and 93.4% during the administration of clevidipine (P = .123).Our study suggests that clevidipine could be an alternative effective drug with an acceptable benefit/risk ratio in the neurosurgical population that fails to achieve BP control with nicardipine treatment.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".