MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415086740 · doi:10.1001/jama.2025.18007

Proactive vs Reactive Treatment of Hypotension During Surgery

2025· article· en· W4415086740 on OpenAlexaff
Matthijs Kant, Wilton A. van Klei, Markus W. Hollmann, Eline S. de Klerk, Luuk Otterspoor, Marc G. Besselink, Teus H. Kappen, Denise P. Veelo, Annemarie Akkermans, Tim Bastiaanse, Wilhelmus A. Bemelman, Mark I. van Berge Henegouwen, Jenyka Bergsma, Maarten Bot, J. Henk Coert, Geert-Jan E. Cromheecke, Freek Daams, Constantijn E.V.B. Hazenberg, Falco Hietbrink, Roel Hompes, Marlous Huijzer, Judith A.F. Huirne, Rogier V. Immink, Yvonne C. Janmaat, Vincent Jongkind, Arthur J. Kievit, Laetitia M.O. de Kort, Olaf Kroon, Pepijn van den Munckhof, Lodewijk W. van Rhijn, Pierre A. Robe, Jan‐Paul Roovers, Jelle P. Ruurda, Rachid Saouti, Matthias U. Schafroth, Rick Schuurman, Erik van Spronsen, Robert J. Stokroos, Magnus Strypet, Sjoerd A.S. Stufkens, Sandra J. Tahanatoe, Lotte E. Terwindt, Lisette M. Vernooij, Niek H. Sperna Weiland, Marije Wijnberge, Jannie Witziers, Ronald P. Zweemer

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMEDLINEBlood pressureMedical therapyHemodynamicsClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with adverse postoperative outcomes, but whether a proactive strategy to prevent intraoperative hypotension improves outcomes is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether intraoperative blood pressure management stratified by risk of hypotension reduces postoperative functional disability compared with usual care in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial, adults undergoing elective noncardiac surgery at 2 tertiary hospitals in the Netherlands were enrolled from June 17, 2021, to February 7, 2024. The date of last follow-up was October 24, 2024. Intervention: Patients were randomized 1:1 to proactive blood pressure management with mean arterial pressure targets based on risk of intraoperative hypotension (low risk, ≥70 mm Hg; intermediate risk, ≥80; high risk, ≥90) or usual management at their anesthesiologist's discretion, generally aiming to avoid a mean arterial pressure of less than 65 mm Hg without higher predefined targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was functional disability at 6 months, assessed with the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0; scale range, 0-100; higher scores indicate more disability). A minimally clinically important difference of 5 points was prespecified. There were 23 secondary outcomes, including quality of life, complications, and mortality within 6 months. Results: The trial was stopped early for futility after 3247 of 5000 planned patients (median age, 59 years [IQR, 44-69]; 1738 female [53.5%]) were enrolled. A total of 677 patients (21%) were low risk; 1814 (56%), intermediate risk, and 756 (23%), high risk. Baseline median WHODAS scores were 12.5 [IQR, 4.2-29.2] in proactive group and 14.6 [IQR, 4.2-29.2] in standard group). At 6 months, mean (SD) WHODAS scores were 17.7 (20.1) in the proactive group and 18.2 (20.5) in the standard group (mean difference, -0.5; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 0.9). There were no significant differences in any of the 23 secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Intraoperative blood pressure management with mean arterial pressure goals stratified by risk of hypotension did not improve functional disability at 6 months postoperatively compared with standard intraoperative blood pressure management. Trial Registration: Overview of Medical Research in the Netherlands (CCMO): NL-OMON55117.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations36
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207