MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3000632366 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4760726

Intra-aortic balloon pump does not influence cerebral hemodynamics and neurological outcomes in high-risk cardiac patients undergoing cardiac surgery: an analysis of the IABCS trial

2019· article· en· W3000632366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juliana Caldas, Ronney B. Panerai, Edson Bor‐Seng‐Shu, Graziela G.S.R. Ferreira, Lígia Câmara, Rogério Hora Passos, Angela S. M. Salinet, Daniel D.S. Azevedo, Marcelo de Lima Oliveira, Filomena Regina Barbosa Gomes Galas, J Fukushima, Ricardo de Carvalho Nogueira, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Giovanni Landoni, Juliano J.P. Almeida, Thompson Robinson, Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCerebral autoregulationCardiologyTranscranial DopplerCerebral perfusion pressureEjection fractionIntra-aortic balloon pumpInternal medicineAfterloadEuroSCORECardiac indexCardiac surgeryHemodynamicsAnesthesiaBlood pressureCoronary artery bypass surgeryCerebral blood flowCardiac outputArteryIntra-Aortic Balloon PumpingAutoregulationMyocardial infarctionCardiogenic shockHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is often used in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery to improve coronary perfusion and decrease afterload. The effects of the IABP on cerebral hemodynamics are unknown. We therefore assessed the effect of the IABP on cerebral hemodynamics and on neurological complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were randomized to receive or not receive preoperative IABP in the ‘Intra-aortic Balloon Counterpulsation in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery’ (IABCS) trial. Methods This is a prospectively planned analysis of the previously published IABCS trial. Patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery with ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% or EuroSCORE ≥ 6 received preoperative IABP (n = 90) or no IABP (n = 91). Cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) of the middle cerebral artery through transcranial Doppler and blood pressure through Finometer or intra-arterial line were recorded preoperatively (T1) and 24 h (T2) and 7 days after surgery (T3) in patients with preoperative IABP (n = 34) and without IABP (n = 33). Cerebral autoregulation was assessed by the autoregulation index that was estimated from the CBFV response to a step change in blood pressure derived by transfer function analysis. Delirium, stroke and cognitive decline 6 months after surgery were recorded. Results There were no differences between the IABP and control patients in the autoregulation index (T1: 5.5 ± 1.9 vs. 5.7 ± 1.7; T2: 4.0 ± 1.9 vs. 4.1 ± 1.6; T3: 5.7 ± 2.0 vs. 5.7 ± 1.6, p = 0.97) or CBFV (T1: 57.3 ± 19.4 vs. 59.3 ± 11.8; T2: 74.0 ± 21.6 vs. 74.7 ± 17.5; T3: 71.1 ± 21.3 vs. 68.1 ± 15.1 cm/s; p = 0.952) at all time points. Groups were not different regarding postoperative rates of delirium (26.5% vs. 24.2%, p = 0.83), stroke (3.0% vs. 2.9%, p = 1.00) or cognitive decline through analysis of the Mini-Mental State Examination (16.7% vs. 40.7%; p = 0.07) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (79.16% vs. 81.5%; p = 1.00). Conclusions The preoperative use of the IABP in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery did not affect cerebral hemodynamics and was not associated with a higher incidence of neurological complications. Trial registration http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02143544).

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→French-language works237,207→