MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409150045 · doi:10.1016/j.ekir.2025.03.055

Association Between Perioperative Hypotension and Graft Function in Kidney Transplantation

2025· article· en· W4409150045 on OpenAlexaff
Steven A. Morrison, Aran Thanamayooran, Karthik Tennankore, Amanda J. Vinson

Bibliographic record

VenueKidney International Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePerioperativeKidney transplantationTransplantationAssociation (psychology)Renal functionIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The impact of perioperative hypotension on graft function after kidney transplantation (KT) has not been well-described; however, it may be expected to negatively impact posttransplant outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing KT in a multiprovincial renal program from 2006 to 2019. Using multivariable logistic regression, we assessed the association of intraoperative hypotension (IOH; systolic blood pressure (sBP) ≤ 90 mm Hg within the final hour of surgery) and postoperative hypotension (POH; occurring within the first 2 postoperative days) with delayed graft function (DGF). In secondary analyses, we used adjusted logistic regression or Cox proportional hazards models to assess the impact of hypotension on prolonged length of stay (LOS), death-censored graft loss (DCGL), and all-cause graft loss (ACGL). Results: Of the 1020 patients included, 209 (20.5%) and 112 (11.0%) had IOH and POH, respectively. POH was associated with DGF (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 4.01, 95% CI: 2.24-7.19), LOS (aOR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.69-4.71), DCGL (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 3.37, 95% CI: 1.29-8.84), and ACGL (aHR: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.26-3.89). IOH was not associated with DGF (aOR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.61-1.72) or LOS (aOR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.81-1.76), but was associated with reduced DCGL (aHR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13-0.82) and ACGL (aHR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.36-0.98). There was a trend toward greater susceptibility to POH in male than female recipients; however, this did not meet statistical significance. Conclusion: Overall, POH, but not IOH, was associated with an increased risk of DGF, prolonged LOS, DCGL, and ACGL.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKidney International ReportsSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207