Increased blood pressure variability during general anaesthesia is associated with worse outcomes after mechanical thrombectomy: a prospective observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Optimal periprocedural blood pressure (BP) management during mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for acute ischaemic stroke is still controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between intraprocedural BP variability (BPV) and outcomes in patients with large vessel occlusion (LVO) following MT with general anaesthesia. Design A prospective observational cohort study. Setting This study was conducted in a single tertiary hospital of Hangzhou in Zhejiang province. Participants A total of 141 patients with LVO treated with MT were finally included between January 2018 and September 2020. Main outcome measures Intraprocedural BP was recorded every 5 min throughout the procedure. BPV was measured as SD, coefficient of variation (CV), max-min (RANGE) and successive variation. Haemorrhagic transformation was assessed on 24-hour CT images according to European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study III trial. Poor functional outcome was defined as 90-day modified Rankin Scale score 3–6. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association of BPV parameters with the incidence of parenchymal haemorrhage (PH) and poor functional outcome. Results After controlling for age, female, history of smoking, hypertension and atrial fibrillation, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, baseline systolic BP (SBP), baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, bridging thrombolysis and times of retrieval attempts, the results demonstrated that intraprocedural SBP RANGE (OR 1.029; 95% CI 1.003 to 1.055; p=0.027), SBP SD (OR 1.135; 95% CI 1.023 to 1.259; p=0.017) and SBP CV (OR 1.189; 95% CI 1.053 to 1.342; p=0.005) were independently associated with poor functional outcome. However, the independent association between intraprocedural BPV and PH at 24 hours has not been established in this study. Conclusions Increased intraprocedural BPV was more likely to have poor functional outcome in patients with LVO following MT with general anaesthesia. This finding indicates that special precautions should be taken to minimise BP fluctuation during procedure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".