MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403781616 · doi:10.1111/ctr.70000

Association of Intraoperative Hypotension With Delayed Graft Function Following Kidney Transplant: A Single Centre Retrospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4403781616 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Sicova, Ryan McGinn, Sophia Emerson, Paula Pérez, Roberto J. González, Yanhong Li, Olusegun Famure, Ian Randall, Daniel Santa Mina, Michael Santema, Duminda N. Wijeysundera, Wilton A. van Klei, S. Joseph Kim, Stuart A. McCluskey

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalToronto General HospitalUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyCohortKidney transplantationSurgeryRenal functionCohort studyKidneyTransplantationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with acute kidney injury after surgery. However, the definition (duration and magnitude) of hypotension during kidney transplantation (KT) surgery on early graft function remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of KT recipients from December 1, 2009, to December 31, 2019. Exposure to intraoperative hypotension was characterized as the duration (minutes) of mean arterial pressure (MAP) <55, <65, <75, and <85 mmHg. Our co-primary outcomes were DGF-creatinine reduction ratio (DGF-CRR, <30% creatinine reduction, postoperative days 1 and 2), and DGF-dialysis (DGF-D, required dialysis within the week of KT for deceased donor recipients). Logistic regression models were fitted to assess this relationship between MAP and DGF. RESULTS: We included 1602 KT (939 deceased donors, 663 living donors) and 23 were excluded. DGF-CRR occurred in 33% of patients. DGF-CRR was associated with MAP < 65 (>5 min: OR 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.39-2.30; 6-10 min: OR 1.67, 95% CI: 0.97-2.86; 11-20 min: OR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.31-3.63) in unadjusted and <55 mmHg (5 min: OR 1.85, 95% CI: 1.47-2.32; 5-10 min: OR 2.41, 95% CI: 1.65-3.53; 11-20 min: OR 2.36, 95% CI: 1.60, 3.48) in adjusted models. There was also a signal for increased risk of DGF-CRR at MAP < 75 (>5 min: OR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.02-2.80). DGF-D (incidence 35%) in deceased donor KT was not associated with hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between intraoperative hypotension and DGF-CRR at a threshold MAP of 55 mmHg, with a consistent signal toward increased risk at both 65 and 75 mmHg, as indicated by unadjusted models.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207