Skip to content

An early warning helps Amsterdam anesthetists keep blood pressure up

In the HYPE trial at Amsterdam UMC, the Hypotension Prediction Index cut median time in hypotension during surgery from 32.7 to 8.0 minutes per patient.

2
Benefit status
Reported
Evidence
Independently studied
Observed
Sources
2 publications

Benefits

Benefit

Median time in hypotension fell from 32.7 to 8.0 minutes per patient

Awaiting review

Outcome identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category

Reduced Risk

Awaiting review

Status

Reported benefit

Awaiting review

Beneficiary groups

People.

Awaiting review

Beneficiaries

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Reach

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Distribution and access

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Duration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Expected?

Yes

Awaiting review

Costs and harms

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

AI system

System

Hypotension Prediction Index (HPI)

Awaiting review

Model

This is an explicit unresolved assignment: the sources on record do not settle this question.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Release

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Provider

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Role

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Configuration

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Inputs and outputs

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Autonomy

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Workflow

Clinicians received the index together with a hemodynamic diagnostic guidance and treatment protocol. Patients had invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring.

Awaiting review

Human oversight

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Relation to AI

Patients were randomized to the early warning system with a protocol or to standard care, so the trial isolates the effect of the system and its protocol together.

Awaiting review

AI contribution

Patients were randomized to the early warning system with a protocol or to standard care, so the trial isolates the effect of the system and its protocol together.

Awaiting review

Measurement

Studies

Study 1: randomized. Study 2: randomized. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Studies

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Study design

Study 1: randomized. Study 2: randomized. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Study design

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Measurement

Study 1: Time-weighted average of mean arterial pressure below 65 mm Hg from continuous invasive monitoring. Study 2: Area and time-weighted area below the hypotension threshold from invasive monitoring. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measurement

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Setting and sample

Study 1: 68 randomized, 60 analyzed adults in elective noncardiac surgery, one tertiary center, May 2018 to March 2019. Study 2: 34 patients having esophageal or lung resection at one hospital in Zagreb, Croatia. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Setting and sample

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Measures

Study 1: Time-weighted average of hypotension; minutes of hypotension. Study 2: Time-weighted area under the threshold of hypotension. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Measures

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Comparison

Study 1: Standard care. Study 2: Conventional pulse contour goal-directed therapy. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Comparison

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Results

Study 1: 0.10 against 0.44 mm Hg; 8.0 against 32.7 minutes. Study 2: Time-weighted area 0.01 against 0.08 mmHg. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Results

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Additional value from AI

Study 1: Median difference 0.38 mm Hg and 16.7 minutes. Study 2: Fewer and shorter hypotensive episodes. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Additional value from AI

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Limitations

Study 1: Small, unblinded, single center; physiological outcome only; funded by the developer. Study 2: Very small; underpowered for clinical outcomes; no outside funding. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Limitations

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Denominators

Study 1: Patients in the intervention arm. Study 2: Patients monitored with the index. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Denominators

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Materials for replication

Study 1: Trial protocol in supplement. Study 2: Data on request. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Materials for replication

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Money

Kind of value

The kind of monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Amount

The monetary value is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Currency and prices

The currency and price basis are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Period and unit

The period and unit of the monetary estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Realization

Whether the monetary value was realized is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Recipients and payers

The recipients and payers are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Gross or net

Whether the monetary figure includes costs is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Included costs

The costs included in the estimate are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Comparison

The financial comparison is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Method

The method used to calculate monetary value is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Return and payback

The return on investment or payback period is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

People and places

Participants

Developer: Edwards Lifesciences. Operator: Amsterdam UMC, location AMC.

Awaiting review

Jurisdictions

Benefit: Amsterdam UMC, location AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Developer: United States. Operator: Netherlands.

Awaiting review

Ownership and control

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Dependencies

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Cross-border connections

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Geopolitical implications

The geopolitical implications are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Follow-up

Conditions for replication

Clinicians must act on alerts with the protocol. Patients must have arterial waveform monitoring.

Awaiting review

Replication attempts

3 follow-up entries. Benefit recurred: 2. Benefit did not recur: 1.

Awaiting review

Later findings

1 December 2020. A pilot randomized trial of index guidance in moderate- to high-risk noncardiac surgery found no reduction in hypotension.

Awaiting review

Availability

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Institutional decision

A relevant institutional decision has not been established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grounds

The grounds for an institutional decision are unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Action and result

The result of an institutional decision is not established.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Success criterion

The criterion for a successful institutional decision is unclear.

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence

Source numbers

AIBD-0636-source-0001–0002

Awaiting review

Citations

Numbered references below.

Awaiting review

Language

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Source relationships

Developer, Independent

Awaiting review

Original evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Access and versions

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Supported findings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Evidence strength

Independently studied. Sources: one independent peer-reviewed study and the makers' peer-reviewed study. The cited evidence includes no finding by a regulator or court. [1] [2]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Evidence strength

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1] [2]

Missing evidence

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Grades

Assessed benefits

People.

Awaiting review

Depth

People: 2.

Awaiting review

Reasons

People: Median time in hypotension per patient fell from 32.7 to 8.0 minutes during surgery.

Awaiting review

Observed or intended

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Rubric

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Assessor and date

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Alternative assessments

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Fill

Independently studied

Awaiting review

Entry details

Kind

The case describes an evaluation or a study. A randomized trial. [1]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Kind

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Field

Healthcare.

Awaiting review

Purpose

The index was built to predict hypotension minutes before it happens so that clinicians can prevent it. Less hypotension was that purpose.

Awaiting review

Dates

Observed: March 2019. Updated: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Stage

The system was used in a pilot. A preliminary single-center trial. [1]

Fully reviewed: supporting details for Stage

Review date: 29 October 2026.

Sources: [1]

Version

SHA-256: 37d060d43cf7…

Awaiting review: supporting details for Version

SHA-256 of the public case, its assessments, and its displayed answers and notes, excluding its own identifier and the derived coverage summary.

References

Other identifiers

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Category mappings

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Citable summary

Unresolved

Not reviewedUnresolved

Revisions

1 revision. Latest: 29 October 2026.

Awaiting review

Sources

  1. Peer-reviewed study Developer

    Wijnberge M, Geerts BF, Hol L, et al. Effect of a Machine Learning-Derived Early Warning System for Intraoperative Hypotension vs Standard Care on Depth and Duration of Intraoperative Hypotension During Elective Noncardiac Surgery: The HYPE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020;323(11):1052-1060.

  2. Peer-reviewed study Independent author

    Šribar A, Jurinjak IS, Almahariq H, et al. Hypotension prediction index guided versus conventional goal directed therapy to reduce intraoperative hypotension during thoracic surgery: a randomized trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2023;23:101.

Cite this case

BibTeX Download BibTeX

Version 37d060d43cf7, archived in the edition of 29 October 2026

Benefit marks

Depth

The number and color show the depth of a benefit.

  1. Depth 1. A convenience, or time or money saved.
  2. Depth 2. A measurable improvement in a result or ability.
  3. Depth 3. A lasting change, an ability restored, or a risk removed.
  4. Depth 4. A serious harm averted or a serious condition resolved in time.
  5. Depth 5. A life or livelihood preserved, or a change documented across a population.

Beneficiary

  • Circle: a person
  • Square: an organization
  • Triangle: society

Evidence

  • Solid. A court or regulator found a benefit, or researchers independently studied it.

  • Hatched. Independent reporting.

  • Outline. Claimed by the parties. Only the people or organizations involved, or sources whose independence has not been assessed, support the benefit.

The fill changes with the evidence. The depth color stays the same.

How benefits are assessed