Protocol for an individual patient data meta‐analysis on blood pressure targets after cardiac arrest

Skrifvars, Markus B.; Ameloot, Koen; Grand, Johannes; Reinikainen, Matti; Hästbacka, Johanna; Niemelä, Ville; Hassager, Christian; Kjaergard, Jesper; Åneman, Anders; Tiainen, Marjaana; Nielsen, Niklas; Ullén, Susann; Dankiewicz, Josef; Olsen, Markus Harboe; Jørgensen, Caroline Kamp; Saxena, Manoj; Jakobsen, Janus Christian

doi:10.1111/aas.14090

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12 A systematic review and meta-analysis with individual patient data identified four randomized clinical trials and a total of 1087 patients with varying MAP targets (65-75 mmHg vs. 80-100 mmHg). 13,14 The meta-analysis could not exclude a clinically significant treatment effect on mortality (<25% relative risk) of a higher or lower MAP-target using frequentist statistics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lower versus higher blood pressure targets in comatose patients resuscitated from out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest—Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis of the box trial

Grand,

Wiberg,

Kjaergaard

et al. 2024

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe management of blood pressure targets during intensive care after out‐of‐hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a topic of debate. The blood Pressure and Oxygenation Targets After OHCA (BOX) trial explored the efficacy of two different blood pressure targets in 789 patients during intensive care after OHCA. In the primary frequentist analysis, no statistically significant differences were found for neurological outcome after 90 days.MethodsThis protocol outlines secondary Bayesian analyses of 365‐day all‐cause mortality and two secondary outcomes: neurological outcome after 365 days, and plasma neuron‐specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, after 48 h. We will employ adjusted Bayesian logistic and linear regressions, presenting results as relative and absolute differences with 95% confidence intervals. We will use weakly informative priors for the primary analyses, and skeptical and evidence‐based priors (where available) in sensitivity analyses. Exact probabilities for any benefit/harm will be presented for all outcomes, along with probabilities of clinically important benefit/harm (risk differences larger than 2%‐points absolute) and no clinically important differences for the binary outcomes. We will assess whether heterogeneity of treatment effects on mortality is present according to lactate at admission, time to return of spontaneous circulation, primary shockable rhythm, age, hypertension, and presence of ST‐elevation myocardial infarction.DiscussionThis secondary analysis of the BOX trial aim to complement the primary frequentist analysis by quantifying the probabilities of beneficial or harmful effects of different blood pressure targets. This approach seeks to provide clearer insights for researchers and clinicians into the effectiveness of these blood pressure management strategies in acute medical conditions, particularly focusing on mortality, neurological outcomes, and neuron‐specific enolase.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%