Continuing versus Stopping Prestroke Antihypertensive Therapy in Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Subgroup Analysis of the Efficacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: More than 50% of patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) are taking antihypertensive drugs before ictus. Although antihypertensive therapy should be given long term for secondary prevention, whether to continue or stop such treatment during the acute phase of ICH remains unclear, a question that was addressed in the Efficacy of Nitric Oxide in Stroke (ENOS) trial. METHODS: ENOS was an international multicenter, prospective, randomized, blinded endpoint trial. Among 629 patients with ICH and systolic blood pressure between 140 and 220 mmHg, 246 patients who were taking antihypertensive drugs were assigned to continue (n = 119) or to stop (n = 127) taking drugs temporarily for 7 days. The primary outcome was the modified Rankin Score at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included death, length of stay in hospital, discharge destination, activities of daily living, mood, cognition, and quality of life. RESULTS: Blood pressure level (baseline 171/92 mmHg) fell in both groups but was significantly lower at 7 days in those patients assigned to continue antihypertensive drugs (difference 9.4/3.5 mmHg, P < .01). At 90 days, the primary outcome did not differ between the groups; the adjusted common odds ratio (OR) for worse outcome with continue versus stop drugs was .92 (95% confidence interval, .45-1.89; P = .83). There was no difference between the treatment groups for any secondary outcome measure, or rates of death or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute ICH, immediate continuation of antihypertensive drugs during the first week did not reduce death or major disability in comparison to stopping treatment temporarily.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".