Epidemiology of Post-craniotomy Hypertension and Its Association With Adverse Outcome(s): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After intracranial surgery, sympathetic overdrive and increased blood catecholamine levels can contribute to postoperative hypertension, a significant clinical problem. The objective of this review was to summarize, quantify, and assess the epidemiological perspective of post-craniotomy hypertension and its association with adverse outcomes. This PROSPERO-registered systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. We searched electronic databases for studies that investigated adult patients who had elective craniotomy for any indication and reported hypertension within 72 hours postoperatively. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Twenty-one studies, including 2602 patients, were identified for inclusion in this review. Multiple thresholds and criteria for defining post-craniotomy hypertension were used across studies. The pooled incidence of post-craniotomy hypertension from 13 studies (2279 patients) was 30% [95% CI, 15%-50%]. Post-craniotomy hypertension was associated with a 2.6 times higher risk of having an intracerebral hemorrhage within 72 hours after surgery (pooled risk ratio, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.16-5.97). There were insufficient data to investigate the quantitative association of post-craniotomy hypertension with 30-day adverse events. In summary, 1 out of 3 patients exhibited hypertension post-craniotomy, and this was associated with a significantly higher risk of having intracranial hemorrhage within 72 hours post-procedure. A generally accepted and clinically relevant criteria for post-craniotomy hypertension should be defined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".