Effect of Antecedent Hypertension and Follow-Up Blood Pressure on Outcomes After High-Risk Myocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of blood pressure on outcomes after high-risk myocardial infarction is not well characterized. We studied the relationship between blood pressure and the risk of cardiovascular events in 14 703 patients with heart failure, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, or both after acute myocardial infarction in the Valsartan in Myocardial Infarction Trial. We assessed the relationship between antecedent hypertension and outcomes and the association between elevated (systolic: >140 mm Hg) or low blood pressure (systolic: <100 mm Hg) in 2 of 3 follow-up visits during the first 6 months and subsequent cardiovascular events over a median 24.7 months of follow-up. Antecedent hypertension independently increased the risk of heart failure (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.32), stroke (HR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.58), cardiovascular death (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.22), and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, or cardiac arrest (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.21). While low blood pressure in the postmyocardial infarction period was associated with increased risk of adverse events, patients with elevated blood pressure (n=1226) were at significantly higher risk of stroke (adjusted HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.29) and combined cardiovascular events (adjusted HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.31). Six months after a high-risk myocardial infarction, elevated systolic blood pressure, a potentially modifiable risk factor, is associated with an increased risk of subsequent stroke and cardiovascular events. Whether aggressive antihypertensive treatment can reduce this risk remains unknown.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".