MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108964763 · doi:10.1159/000016066

Management of Resistant Hypertension in Patients with Carotid Stenosis: High Prevalence of Renovascular Hypertension

2000· article· en· W2108964763 on OpenAlexaff
J. David Spence

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebrovascular Diseases · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical Trials
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineRenovascular hypertensionCardiologyCarotid endarterectomyInternal medicineStenosisBlood pressureSecondary hypertensionRenal artery stenosisEssential hypertensionAsymptomaticRenal arteryKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Patients with carotid stenosis are at high risk of vascular events and therefore require an optimal control of risk factors such as hypertension. As the treatment of hypertension differs according to the cause, we examined the prevalence of resistant hypertension, and the cause of hypertension, among patients with carotid stenosis followed closely in two randomized trials of carotid endarterectomy. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of resistant hypertension and of secondary hypertension among patients with carotid stenosis. METHODS: A chart review was performed of all patients from our center who participated in the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial or the Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Study to determine the prevalence of renovascular hypertension. RESULTS: Among 170 patients with carotid stenosis followed in these two trials, 145 (83.5%) were hypertensive (systolic >160 or diastolic >90 mm Hg); at least 24 (14.1% overall, 16.6% of hypertensives) had renovascular hypertension based on either nuclear medicine renography, renal angiography or both; among the 79 patients with resistant hypertension (mean arterial pressure >130 mm Hg despite treatment), 20 (25.3%) had renovascular hypertension. Adrenocortical hyperplasia was the underlying cause of hypertension in 12 (7.1% of cases, 8.3% of hypertensives, 8.8% of resistant hypertensives). Blood pressures were significantly higher for patients with renovascular and adrenocortical hypertension (p < 0.0001 for systolic, p = 0.024 for diastolic pressures). CONCLUSION: Among patients with carotid stenosis, renovascular hypertension is unusually common. Resistant hypertension among such patients should lead to investigation and management directed at the cause of hypertension. Appropriate investigations might include plasma renin/aldosterone ratio, captopril renography and MRA of the renal arteries or renal angiography.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebrovascular DiseasesSame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207