Risks of cardiovascular events and effects of routine blood pressure lowering among patients with type 2 diabetes and atrial fibrillation: results of the ADVANCE study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate serious clinical outcomes associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) and the effects of routine blood pressure lowering on such outcomes in the presence or absence of AF, among individuals with type 2 diabetes. METHODS AND RESULTS: About 11 140 patients with type 2 diabetes (7.6% of whom had AF at baseline) were randomized to a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide or placebo in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: preterAx and diamicroN-MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) study. We compared total mortality and cardiovascular disease outcomes and effects of randomized treatment for 4.3 years on such outcomes between patients with and without AF at baseline. After multiple adjustments, AF was associated with a 61% (95% confidence interval 31-96, P < 0.0001) greater risk of all-cause mortality and comparable higher risks of cardiovascular death, stroke, and heart failure (all P < 0.001). Routine treatment with a fixed combination of perindopril and indapamide produced similar relative, but greater absolute, risk reductions for all-cause and cardiovascular mortalities in patients with AF, compared with those without AF. The number of patients needed to be treated with perindopril-indapamide for 5 years to prevent one cardiovascular death was 42 for patients with AF and 120 for patients without AF at baseline. CONCLUSION: Atrial fibrillation is relatively common in type 2 diabetes and is associated with substantially increased risks of death and cardiovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes. This arrhythmia identifies individuals who are likely to obtain greater absolute benefits from blood pressure-lowering treatment. Atrial fibrillation in diabetic patients should be regarded as a marker of particularly adverse outcome and prompt aggressive management of all risk factors.
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".