MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293316146 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2208687

Blood-Pressure Targets in Comatose Survivors of Cardiac Arrest

2022· article· en· W4293316146 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jesper Kjærgaard, Jacob Eifer Møller, Henrik Schmidt, Johannes Grand, Simon Mølstrøm, Britt Borregaard, Søren Venø, Laura Sarkisian, Dmitry Mamaev, Lisette Okkels Jensen, Benjamin Nyholm, Dan Eik Høfsten, Jakob Josiassen, Jakob Hartvig Thomsen, Jens Jakob Thune, Laust Emil Roelsgaard Obling, Matias Greve Lindholm, Martin Frydland, M Meyer, Matilde Winther‐Jensen, Rasmus Paulin Beske, Ruth Frikke‐Schmidt, Sebastian Wiberg, Søren Boesgaard, Søren Aalbæk Madsen, Vibeke Lind Jørgensen, Christian Hassager

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovo Nordisk FondenLundbeckfonden
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureComa (optics)Intensive care medicineAnesthesiaIntensive careInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence to support the choice of blood-pressure targets for the treatment of comatose survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest who are receiving intensive care is limited. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we evaluated a mean arterial blood-pressure target of 63 mm Hg as compared with 77 mm Hg in comatose adults who had been resuscitated after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac cause; patients were also assigned to one of two oxygen targets (reported separately). The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or hospital discharge with a Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) of 3 or 4 within 90 days (range, 0 to 5, with higher categories indicating more severe disability; a category of 3 or 4 indicates severe disability or coma). Secondary outcomes included neuron-specific enolase levels at 48 hours, death from any cause, scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (range, 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive ability) and the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 3 months, and the CPC at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 789 patients were included in the analysis (393 in the high-target group and 396 in the low-target group). A primary-outcome event occurred in 133 patients (34%) in the high-target group and in 127 patients (32%) in the low-target group (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.37; P = 0.56). At 90 days, 122 patients (31%) in the high-target group and 114 patients (29%) in the low-target group had died (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.46). The median CPC was 1 (interquartile range, 1 to 5) in both the high-target group and the low-target group; the corresponding median modified Rankin scale scores were 1 (interquartile range, 0 to 6) and 1 (interquartile range, 0 to 6), and the corresponding median Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores were 27 (interquartile range, 24 to 29) and 26 (interquartile range, 24 to 29). The median neuron-specific enolase level at 48 hours was also similar in the two groups. The percentages of patients with adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting a mean arterial blood pressure of 77 mm Hg or 63 mm Hg in patients who had been resuscitated from cardiac arrest did not result in significantly different percentages of patients dying or having severe disability or coma. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation; BOX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03141099.).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations263
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207