Effects of Ramipril on Coronary Events in High-Risk Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In trials of patients with left ventricular dysfunction or heart failure, ACE inhibitor use was unexpectedly associated with reduced myocardial infarction (MI). Using the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial data, we tested prospectively whether ramipril, an ACE inhibitor, could reduce coronary events and revascularization procedures among patients with normal left ventricular function. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the HOPE trial, 9297 high-risk men and women, >/=55 years of age with previous cardiovascular disease or diabetes plus 1 risk factor, were randomly assigned to ramipril (up to 10 mg/d), vitamin E (400 IU/d), their combination, or matching placebos. During the mean follow-up of 4.5 years, there were 482 (10.4%) patients with clinical MI and unexpected cardiovascular death in the ramipril group compared with 604 (12.9%) in the placebo group [relative risk reduction (RRR), 21% (95% CI) (11,30); P<0.0003]. Ramipril was associated with a trend toward less fatal MI and unexpected death [4.0% versus 4.7%; RRR, 16% (-3, 31)] and with a significant reduction in nonfatal MI [5.6% versus 7.2%; RRR, 23% (9,34)]. Risk reductions in MI were documented in participants taking or not taking beta-blockers, lipid lowering, and/or antiplatelet agents. Although ramipril had no impact on hospitalizations for unstable angina [11.9% versus 12.2%; RRR, 3% (-9,14)], it reduced the risk of worsening and new angina [27.2% versus 30.0%; RRR, 12% (5,18); P<0.0014] and coronary revascularizations [12.5% versus 14.8%; RRR, 18%; (8,26) P<0.0005]. CONCLUSIONS: In this high-risk cohort, ramipril reduced the risk of MI, worsening and new angina, and the occurrence of coronary revascularizations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".