MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295837442 · doi:10.1093/ehjacc/zuac109

Blood pressure and oxygenation targets after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-trial (BOX)

2022· article· en· W4295837442 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sean van Diepen, Guido Tavazzi, David A. Morrow

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular Care · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxygenationMedicineCardiologyBlood pressureInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypotension after a resuscitated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is common, and may be due to post-arrest myocardial dysfunction and/or vasoplegia.1 In patients with post-OHCA hypoxic ischaemic brain injury, cerebral blood flow autoregulation may be impaired resulting in a risk of cerebral hypoperfusion with a low normal mean arterial pressure (MAP).2 Moreover, in observational studies, post-OHCA hypotension has been associated with a higher risk of mortality.3,4 However, the potential benefits of routine higher MAP targets must be counterbalanced against the potential risks of higher doses of vasoactive medications including arrhythmogenesis, and higher systemic vascular resistance (SVR) inducing impaired cardiac output (CO) and coronary perfusion. A recent pooled analysis of the NEUROPROTECT and COMACARE trials included 235 post-OHCA patients who were randomized to MAP targets of 65 mmHg or 80/85–100 mmHg for the first 72 h after admission reported a lower 72-h troponin area under the curve with no difference in arrhythmias despite higher vasoactive use in the high MAP target arm. The study was not powered for clinical outcomes.5 The optimal MAP target in patients with a resuscitation OHCA remains unknown. The European Resuscitation Council post-cardiac arrest Care Guideline recommends to avoid MAP <65 mmHg; however, this target is a weak recommendation based on low quality evidence.6 The aim of the trial was to evaluate the difference in a target MAP of 63 vs. 77 mmHg on CO, SVR, and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure.7 The BOX trial was a double-blind, multicentre factorial trial that randomized comatose post-OHCA patients to a target MAP to 63 or 77 mmHg, and to a liberal vs. restrictive oxygenation target.8 It enrolled 8000 patients from two centres in Denmark. Blinding was achieved through a programmed calibration factor in the haemodynamic monitoring modules that was adjusted in a 1:1 randomization to show a BP value either lower or higher than the patients’ actual BP, such that targeting 70 mmHg during treatment in both groups will result in an intended blinded comparison of 63 and 77 mmHg. Selected inclusion criteria included: age ≥18 years, OHCA of presumed cardiac cause, sustained return of spontaneous circulation for >20 min, Glasgow Coma Scale <8, >4 h from return of spontaneous circulation to randomization. Selected exclusion criteria: In hospital cardiac arrest, unwitnessed systole, >4 h from return of spontaneous circulation to randomization to randomization; systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg despite fluids, vasopressor, and/or ionotropic support. All patients underwent targeted temperature management at 36°C. Pulmonary arterial catheter measurements were protocolized for first 48 h. A total of 789 patients were randomized, among whom, 85% presented with a shockable rhythm, 86% had bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), the mean time to return of spontaneous circulation was 18 min, and 45% presented with ST-segment elevation.8 The mean difference in MAP was 10.5 mmHg, which was primarily achieved with higher dosages of vasoactive agents. There was no difference in the primary outcome of death within 90 days or hospital discharge with a poor neuro cerebral performance score (CPC 3 or 4) between the high (34%) vs. low MAP (32%) arms. There were no differences in secondary outcomes including all-cause death, acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (10% in both arms), median neuron-specific enolase at 48 h, or in Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores at 90 days measured among survivors. Adverse events including the incidence of arrhythmias were similar between treatment arms. In the largest randomized trial focused on target blood pressure during management of post-cardiac arrest syndrome, the findings indicate that routine treatment to a higher MAP target does not improve clinical outcomes. The trial population was representative of care in Denmark with a very high proportion of initial shockable rhythm with bystander CPR resulting in a short time to return to spontaneous circulation (21 min) and a remarkably good median CPC at follow-up (one in both groups). An algorithm for blinded targeting of different BP targets in the two groups is a particular strength of this randomized trial. The achievement of a 10.5 mmHg differential BP between the two treatment arms supports adherence to implementation of the protocol with a meaningful test of the main hypothesis. Treatment with a lower MAP target appeared safe and reduced the overall dosing of vasopressors. As such, the BOX randomized trial provides high quality evidence that a MAP of 63–65 mmHg is a reasonable initial target in the management of this high-risk population; though the target may need to individualized in some patients with persistent end-organ hypoperfusion or in those who develop cerebral oedema. These trial results may be easily integrated into clinical practice. Future studies may be warranted to evaluate higher MAP targets in a study population with a higher baseline potential for severe anoxic brain injury. Although given the directionality of the observed result, the likelihood of a benefit of higher MAP target appears unlikely, the trial was designed with adequate power for a ∼26% relative risk reduction and thus it is possible that a smaller, but clinically relevant, effect size could have been missed. Presenter/study group: J. Kjaergaard.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.756
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal Acute Cardiovascular CareSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207