MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410438055 · doi:10.1186/s13054-025-05432-5

Individualized mean arterial pressure targets in critically ill patients guided by non-invasive cerebral-autoregulation: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4410438055 on OpenAlexaff
Jiale Xie, Al-Waleed Al-Battashi, Amanda Ross‐White, J. Gordon Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCritically illCerebral autoregulationIntensive care medicineAutoregulationBlood pressureMean arterial pressureEmergency medicineCardiologyInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend a uniform mean arterial pressure (MAP) target for resuscitating critically ill patients; for example, 65 mmHg for patients with sepsis and post-cardiac arrest. However, since cerebral autoregulation capacity likely varies widely in patients, uniform target may be insufficient in maintaining cerebral perfusion. Personalized MAP targets, based on a non-invasive determination of cerebral autoregulation, may optimize perfusion and reduce complications. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review summarizes the numerical values, feasibility, and clinical data on personalized MAP targets in critically ill patients. The focus is on non-invasive monitoring, such as near-infrared spectroscopy and transcranial doppler ultrasound, due to their safety, practicality and applicability to patients with- and without brain injury. METHODS: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a systematic search of Ovid MedLine, Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Library (Wiley) was conducted on September 28, 2023. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and manually reviewed references. RESULTS: Of 7,738 studies were identified, 49 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 45 (92%) were observational and 4 (8%) were interventional. Patient populations included cardiac surgery (26, 53%), non-cardiac major surgery (4, 8%), cardiac arrest (8, 16%), brain injury (7, 14%), respiratory failure and shock (3, 6%), and sepsis (3, 6%). Optimal MAP was reported in 24 (49%), lower limit of autoregulation in 23 (47%), and upper limit of autoregulation in 10 studies (20%). Thirty-four studies reported partial data loss due to software failures, anomalous data, insufficient natural MAP fluctuation, and workflow barriers. Available randomized controlled trials (RCT) identified challenges with maintaining patients within their target range. Studies explored the associations between personalized MAP targets and a wide range of neurological and non-neurological outcomes, with the most significant and consistent associations identified for acute kidney injury and major morbidity and mortality. Ten studies investigated demographic predictors identifying only few predictors of personalized targets. CONCLUSION: Preliminary investigations suggest considerable variability in personalized MAP targets, which may explain differences in clinical outcomes among critically ill populations. Key gaps remain, including a lack of observational studies in critically ill subpopulations other than cardiac surgery and well-designed RCTs. Resolving identified feasibility barriers might be crucial to successfully carrying out future studies.

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)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.332 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207