MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015382273 · doi:10.1164/rccm.201908-1681oc

Association of Premorbid Blood Pressure with Vasopressor Infusion Duration in Patients with Shock

2020· article· en· W3015382273 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hayley B. Gershengorn, Henry T. Stelfox, Daniel J. Niven, Hannah Wunsch

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalUniversity of TorontoLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureShock (circulatory)AnesthesiaVasoconstrictor AgentsDuration (music)Lower blood pressureCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rationale Guidelines for vasopressor titration suggest a universal target—mean arterial pressure (MAP) >65 mm Hg. The implications for patients with premorbid low/high blood pressure are unknown. Objectives To investigate the relationship between premorbid blood pressure and vasopressor duration for patients with shock. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted with shock to Calgary ICUs (June 2012–December 2018). The primary exposure was premorbid blood pressure: low (systolic <100); normal (systolic 100–139 and diastolic <90); and high (systolic ≥140 or diastolic ≥90). The primary outcome was vasopressor duration; secondary outcomes included ICU/hospital length of stay and ICU/hospital mortality. We examined associations of premorbid blood pressure with vasopressor duration and length of stay using multivariable competing risk models and mortality using multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression. Measurements and Main Results Of 3,542 admissions with shock, 177 (5.0%) had premorbid low, 2,887 (81.5%) normal, and 478 (13.5%) high blood pressure. Premorbid low admissions had lower MAPs (vs. normal or high premorbid admissions) over the duration of vasopressor use (P = 0.003) and were maintained nearest premorbid MAPs while receiving vasopressors (P < 0.001). After adjustment, premorbid low admissions had longer vasopressor use (median, 1.35 d vs. 1.04 d for normal; hazard ratio for discontinuation vs. normal, 0.78 [0.73–0.85]; P < 0.001) and premorbid high admissions had shorter use (median, 0.84 d; hazard ratio, 1.22 [1.12–1.33]; P < 0.001). Premorbid low admissions had longer adjusted length of stay and higher adjusted mortality than premorbid normal admissions. Conclusions Premorbid blood pressure was inversely associated with vasopressor duration.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care MedicineSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207