Effects of a Hypotension-Avoidance Versus a Hypertension-Avoidance Strategy on Neurocognitive Outcomes After Noncardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perioperative hemodynamic abnormalities have been associated with neurocognitive outcomes after noncardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of perioperative hypotension-avoidance versus hypertension-avoidance strategies on delirium and 1-year cognitive decline after noncardiac surgery. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505723). SETTING: 54 centers, 19 countries. PARTICIPANTS: 2603 high-vascular-risk patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, receiving 1 or more chronic antihypertensive medications (mean age, 70 years). INTERVENTION: In the hypotension-avoidance strategy, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure (MAP) target was 80 mm Hg or greater; before and for 2 days after surgery, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors were withheld, and other chronic antihypertensive medications were administered for systolic blood pressures of 130 mm Hg or greater following an algorithm. In the hypertension-avoidance strategy, the intraoperative MAP target was 60 mm Hg or greater; all chronic antihypertensive medications were continued perioperatively. MEASUREMENTS: Delirium on postoperative day 1 to 3 (primary outcome); decline of 2 points or more at the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) 1 year after surgery compared with baseline (secondary outcome). RESULTS: 95 of 1310 patients (7.3%) in the hypotension-avoidance and 90 of 1293 patients (7.0%) in the hypertension-avoidance group had delirium (relative risk [RR], 1.04 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.38]). Among 701 patients who completed 1-year MoCA (full or telephone version), 129 of 347 (37.2%) in the hypotension-avoidance and 117 of 354 (33.1%) in the hypertension-avoidance group had a decline of 2 or more points (RR, 1.13 [CI, 0.92 to 1.38]). Nineteen percent in the hypotension-avoidance and 27% in the hypertension-avoidance strategy had hypotension requiring an intervention (RR, 0.63 [CI, 0.52 to 0.76]), mostly intraoperatively; only 5%, in both groups, had hypotension postoperatively. LIMITATION: The COVID-19 pandemic challenged site participation in the substudy; although large, the sample size was lower than expected. CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of a difference in neurocognitive outcomes between the hypotension-avoidance and hypertension-avoidance strategies. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canada; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Research Grant Council, Hong Kong SAR, China.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".