Ultra‐Early Blood Pressure Reduction Attenuates Hematoma Growth and Improves Outcome in Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to investigate whether intensive blood pressure treatment is associated with less hematoma growth and better outcome in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients who received intravenous nicardipine treatment ≤2 hours after onset of symptoms. METHODS: A post-hoc exploratory analysis of the Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage 2 (ATACH-2) trial was performed. This was a multicenter, international, open-label, randomized clinical trial, in which patients with primary ICH were allocated to intensive versus standard blood pressure treatment with nicardipine ≤4.5 hours after onset of symptoms. We have included 913 patients with complete imaging and follow-up data in the present analysis. RESULTS: Among the 913 included patients, 354 (38.7%) had intravenous nicardipine treatment initiated within 2 hours. In this subgroup of patients treated within 2 hours, the frequency of ICH expansion was significantly lower in the intensive blood pressure reduction group compared with the standard treatment group (p = 0.02). Multivariable analysis showed that ultra-early intensive blood pressure treatment was associated with a decreased risk of hematoma growth (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.92; p = 0.02), higher rate of functional independence (odds ratio, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.28-3.68; p = 0.004), and good outcome (odds ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.01-2.83; p = 0.048) at 90 days. Ultra-early intensive blood pressure reduction was associated with a favorable shift in modified Rankin Scale score distribution at 3 months (p = 0.04). INTERPRETATION: In a subgroup of ICH patients with elevated blood pressure given intravenous nicardipine ≤2 hours after onset of symptoms, intensive blood pressure reduction was associated with reduced hematoma growth and improved functional outcome. ANN NEUROL 2020;88:388-395.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".