Intraoperative Hypotension in Patients Having Major Noncardiac Surgery Under General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review of Blood Pressure Optimization Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with increased risks of postoperative complications. Consequently, a variety of blood pressure optimization strategies have been tested to prevent or promptly treat intraoperative hypotension. We performed a systematic review to summarize randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of blood pressure optimization interventions in either mitigating exposure to intraoperative hypotension or reducing risks of postoperative complications. METHODS: Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials were searched from database inception to August 2, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (without language restriction) that evaluated the impact of any blood pressure optimization intervention on intraoperative hypotension and/or postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: The review included 48 studies (N = 46,377), which evaluated 10 classes of blood pressure optimization interventions. Commonly assessed interventions included hemodynamic protocols using arterial waveform analysis, preoperative withholding of antihypertensive medications, continuous blood pressure monitoring, and adjuvant agents (vasopressors, anticholinergics, anticonvulsants). These same interventions reduced intraoperative exposure to hypotension. Conversely, low blood pressure alarms had an inconsistent impact on exposure to hypotension. Aside from limited evidence that higher prespecified intraoperative blood pressure targets led to a reduced risk of complications, there were few data suggesting that these interventions prevented postoperative complications. Heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Several different blood pressure optimization interventions show promise in reducing exposure to intraoperative hypotension. Nonetheless, the impact of these interventions on clinical outcomes remains unclear. Future trials should assess promising interventions in samples sufficiently large to identify clinically plausible treatment effects on important outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".