Comparison of clinical outcomes between active and permissive blood pressure management in extremely preterm infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There remains uncertainty about the definition of normal blood pressure (BP), and when to initiate treatment for hypotension for extremely preterm infants. To determine the short-term outcomes of extremely preterm infants managed by active compared with permissive BP support regimens during the first 72 hours of life. Method This is a retrospective medical records review of 23+0–28+6 weeks’ gestational age (GA) infants admitted to neonatal units (NNU) with active BP support (aimed to maintain mean arterial BP (MABP) >30 mmHg irrespective of the GA) and permissive BP support (used medication only when babies developed signs of hypotension) regimens. Babies admitted after 12 hours of age, or whose BP data were not available were excluded. Results There were 764 infants admitted to the participating hospitals; 671 (88%) were included in the analysis (263 active BP support and 408 permissive BP support ). The mean gestational age, birth weight, admission temperature, clinical risk index for babies (CRIB) score and first haemoglobin of infants were comparable between the groups. Active BP support group infants had consistently higher MABP and systolic BP throughout the first 72 hours of life (p<0.01). In the active group compared to the permissive group 56 (21.3%) vs 104 (25.5%) babies died, and 21 (8%) vs 51 (12.5%) developed >grade 2 intra ventricular haemorrhage (IVH). Death before discharge (adjusted OR 1.38 (0.88 – 2.16)) or IVH (1.38 (0.96 – 1.98)) was similar between the two groups. Necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) ≥stage 2 was significantly higher in permissive BP support group infants (1.65 (1.07 – 2.50)). Conclusions There was no difference in mortality or IVH between the two BP management approaches. Active BP support may reduce NEC. This should be investigated prospectively in large multicentre randomised studies.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".