A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prophylactic Vasopressors for the Prevention of Peri-Intubation Hypotension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Peri-intubation hypotension is a known complication of endotracheal intubation. In the hospital setting, peri-intubation hypotension has been shown to increase hospital mortality and length of stay. The use of prophylactic vasopressors at the time of sedation induction to prevent peri-intubation hypotension has been raised. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to review the safety and efficacy of this practice. METHODS: The study was fully registered with PROSPERO on 13 October 2022, and screening for eligibility was initiated on 20 September 2024. Randomized controlled trials, along with retrospective or prospective cohort studies, were included in the search. The terms "peri-intubation hypotension", "vasopressors", "intubation", and "anesthesia induced hypotension" were used to search the title/summary in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. An assessment of bias for each study was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The primary outcome was the rate of hypotension peri-intubation. Any complications secondary to hypotension or vasopressors were the secondary outcome. RESULTS: We identified 13 studies, which were all randomized controlled studies, to include in the final analysis. The risk ratio for preventing peri-intubation hypotension was 1.6 (95% CI, 1.2-2.14) with the use of prophylactic phenylephrine while giving propofol versus no prophylactic vasopressors and 1.28 (95% CI 1.03-1.60) with the use of ephedrine. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that in patients undergoing intubation in the operating room with propofol, prophylactic vasopressors given with induction for intubation decrease the odds of hypotension.
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 | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".