Nursing Management of Neonatal Hypertension in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit-An Updated Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Neonatal hypertension is increasingly recognized as a clinically significant condition, particularly among premature infants in neonatal intensive care units. Historically, limited normative blood pressure data and variability in measurement methods hindered early diagnosis and management. The condition arises from multifactorial etiologies, including prematurity-related complications, renal pathology, cardiovascular abnormalities, genetic factors, and environmental exposures. Aim: This review aims to provide an updated, comprehensive overview of the nursing management of neonatal hypertension, emphasizing diagnostic approaches, etiologic considerations, monitoring techniques, and evidence-based treatment strategies. Methods: A narrative review methodology was employed, synthesizing current literature related to blood pressure measurement techniques, pathophysiology, epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluation, management, prognosis, and interprofessional collaboration in neonatal hypertension. Results: Accurate diagnosis relies on repeated blood pressure measurements using standardized invasive or noninvasive methods. Prematurity and renal disorders remain the leading causes. Nonrenal factors—such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia, endocrine disorders, and environmental exposures—also contribute. Management centers on addressing underlying causes, optimizing nursing surveillance, and employing pharmacologic or surgical treatments when indicated. Early intervention mitigates risks of end-organ damage, including renal injury, cardiac dysfunction, and neurologic sequelae. Effective care requires interprofessional coordination among neonatologists, nephrologists, nurses, pharmacists, and caregivers. Conclusion: Neonatal hypertension is a complex, multifactorial condition requiring vigilant nursing assessment, accurate monitoring, and individualized treatment. Early recognition, thorough evaluation, and targeted management substantially improve outcomes, while structured interprofessional collaboration enhances continuity of care and long-term health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".