A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Defining Postinduction Hemodynamic Instability With an Automated Classification Model. | LitMetric

Background: Postinduction hypotension (PIH) may be associated with increased morbidity and mortality. In earlier studies, the definition of PIH is solely based on different absolute or relative thresholds. However, the time-course (eg, how fast blood pressure drops during induction) is rarely incorporated, whereas it might represent the hemodynamic instability of a patient. We propose a comprehensive model to distinguish hemodynamically unstable from stable patients by combining blood pressure thresholds with the magnitude and speed of decline.

Methods: This prospective study included 375 adult elective noncardiac surgery patients. Noninvasive blood pressure was continuously measured between 5 minutes before up to 15 minutes after the first induction agent had been administered. An expert panel rated whether the patient experienced clinically relevant hemodynamic instability or not. Interrater correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation were computed to check for consistency between experts. Next, an automated classification model for clinically relevant hemodynamic instability was developed using mean, maximum, minimum systolic, mean, diastolic arterial blood pressure (SAP, MAP, and DAP, respectively) and their corresponding time course of decline. The model was trained and tested based on the hemodynamic instability labels provided by the experts.

Results: In total 78 patients were classified as having experienced hemodynamic instability and 279 as not. The hemodynamically unstable patients were significantly older (7 years, 95% confidence interval (CI), 4-11, P < .001), with a higher prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (3% higher, 95% CI, 1-8, P = .036). Before induction, hemodynamically unstable patients had a higher SAP (median (first-third quartile): 161 (145-175) mm Hg vs 150 (134-166) mm Hg, P < .001) compared to hemodynamic stable patients. Interrater agreement between experts was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94). The random forest classifier model showed excellent performance with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.96, a sensitivity of 0.84, and specificity of 0.94.

Conclusions: Based on the high sensitivity and specificity, the developed model is able to differentiate between clinically relevant hemodynamic instability and hemodynamic stable patients. This classification model will pave the way for future research concerning hemodynamic instability and its prevention.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000007315DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hemodynamic instability
32
blood pressure
16
classification model
12
hemodynamically unstable
12
stable patients
12
clinically relevant
12
relevant hemodynamic
12
hemodynamic
10
instability
8
automated classification
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!