ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Association between delayed invasive blood pressure monitoring and all-cause mortality in intensive care unit patients with sepsis: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- ARISE framework: a temporal, multi-organ view of perfusion in sepsis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Intra-arterial catheters: An evidence-based review of device design, function and application.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Review
- AI-driven carotid artery compressibility assessment via point-of-care ultrasound for blood pressure estimation in critically ill and post-resuscitation patients: a prospective observational study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Haemodynamic management is essential in sepsis management. Invasive blood pressure (IBP) monitoring is the gold standard for blood pressure (BP) assessment. Here, we identified the most advantageous time frame for IBP monitoring to mitigate adverse outcomes in patients with sepsis. Methods: We included data on patients with sepsis from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database. The primary endpoints comprised 28-and 90-day mortality rates, whereas secondary endpoints were acute kidney injury (AKI) rates and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) requirement. To confirm our findings' robustness, we performed multivariable Cox regression and logistic regression models, augmented by propensity score matching (PSM). Results: Of 18,326 patients hospitalised for sepsis, 9,056 (49.42%) and 9,270 (50.58%) were included in the early and delayed IBP-monitoring groups, respectively. Our multivariable Cox regression models revealed 20 and 21% significant increases in 28-and 90-day mortality in the delayed IBP monitoring group, respectively [hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) = 1.20 (1.11-1.31) and 1.21 (1.12-1.31), respectively; both Conclusion: Prolonged delay in IBP monitoring (≥3 h) may increase mortality risks in ICU patients with sepsis. Nevertheless, early IBP monitoring may reduce AKI, CRRT and mechanical ventilation requirement risks and shorten ICU stay. However, these results warrant further validation through randomised controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.