Association between Pulse Pressure and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulse pressure has been shown to be associated with adverse outcomes in the general population and in patients on hemodialysis (HD). However, the significance of pulse pressure has not been studied in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients. This study examined the association between pulse pressure and mortality in patients undergoing chronic PD. METHODS: All patients aged 18 years or older that commenced PD between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005 at the University Health Network, Toronto, were included. The association between pulse pressure and mortality was assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 306 patients were included in the study. Mean pulse pressure of the study cohort was 56.8 +/- 17.8 mmHg. Age and diabetes were significant predictors of elevated pulse pressure (p < 0.001). After adjusting for the level of systolic blood pressure and other demographic and clinical parameters, multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling showed a direct and consistent association between pulse pressure and death risk. Each increment of 1 mmHg in pulse pressure was associated with a 2.7% increased hazard of all-cause death [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.001 - 1.054, p = 0.039] and a 4.1% increase in risk for cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 1.041, 95% CI 1.003 - 1.081; p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Elevated pulse pressure is associated with an increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular death in patients on PD. Recognition of this characteristic as an important predictor of mortality suggests that one goal of antihypertensive therapy in PD patients should be to decrease elevated pulse pressure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".