MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116699513 · doi:10.1007/s10877-025-01402-y

The effect of personalized perioperative blood pressure management on intraoperative cerebral oxygen saturation, burst suppression ratio and postoperative neurological outcomes in patients having major non-cardiac surgery: an observational substudy of the IMPROVE-pilot randomized controlled trial

2025· article· en· W7116699513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wiam T. Khader, Marc Hein, Karim Kouz, Alina Bergholz, Bernd Saugel, Julia Wallqvist, Sebastian Goldmann, Katharina Gräfe, Jan Larmann, Linda Grüßer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRWTH Aachen University
KeywordsBlood pressureAnesthesiologyPerioperativeBurst suppressionRandomized controlled trialObservational studyDeliriumBlood managementMean arterial pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is not clear whether adopting personalized intraoperative blood pressure management could lead to better intraoperative regional cerebral saturation (rSO2), lower burst suppression ratio (BSR) or better neurological outcomes. Therefore, we performed this prespecified exploratory substudy of the IMPROVE-pilot trial to investigate the effects of personalized compared to routine intraoperative blood pressure management on the intraoperative rSO2. We also explored the effect of personalized intraoperative blood pressure management on BSR and the incidence of postoperative delirium (POD) and delayed neurocognitive recovery (dNCR). We included patients aged ≥ 45 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II-IV who were scheduled for elective major surgery. Preoperative automated nighttime blood pressure measurements were performed. Patients were randomized to personalized blood pressure management maintaining intraoperative mean arterial pressure (MAP) at least at the preoperative mean nighttime MAP or to routine blood pressure management with a lower MAP intervention threshold of 65 mmHg. Intraoperative measurements of MAP, rSO2 on both hemispheres, and BSR were performed. POD was assessed daily on the first 3 postoperative days using the 3D-confusion assessment method or the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit. We screened for dNCR using the telephone-Montreal Cognitive Assessment on postoperative days 3, 7, and 30. We enrolled 55 patients and randomized 50 patients. 49 patients were included in the final analysis. The median areas under the baseline rSO2 and BSR were similar between the two groups. One patient assigned to personalized blood pressure management and none of the patients assigned to routine blood pressure management had POD. There was no meaningful difference in the incidence of dNCR between the groups. In this substudy of the IMPROVE-pilot trial, we observed no evidence of difference in intraoperative area under baseline rSO2 between patients who received personalized compared to routine perioperative blood pressure management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This substudy was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien DRKS00025762, on December 3, 2021).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Monitoring and ComputingSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207