Preoperative Continuation of RAAS Inhibitors in Hypertensive Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been incongruent evidence on the outcomes relating to whether continuing or withholding renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) preoperatively. This study aimed to systematically analyze the effect of preoperative RAASi on perioperative and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing noncardiac surgeries. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases were used with no limitation of the starting date, till 30th September 2024. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB-2) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment. The primary study outcomes were hemodynamic outcomes while the secondary outcomes included postoperative 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF). RESULTS: Among 1897 articles, 6 eligible randomized control trials and 6 observational studies were enrolled. The patients preoperatively continuing RAASi had a higher risk of intraoperative hypotension [OR (odds ratio) = 1.54; 95% CI (confidence interval) = 1.31, 1.82], along with lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures compared to those withholding RAASi. Postoperative complications including 30-day mortality, MI, stroke, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, septicemia, myocardial injury, postoperative hypertension and unplanned ICU admission, showed no significant differences. However, there was a marginal significance in lower POAF in the RAASi-continuing group (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.52, 1.02). CONCLUSIONS: Withholding RAASi prior to noncardiac operation significantly reduced the risk of intraoperative hypotension but may increase the chance to develop POAF without significant impact on 30-day mortality and other postoperative complications. Discontinuation of RAASi before noncardiac surgery is recommended unless obligate indication.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".