Effect of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering on Incident Atrial Fibrillation and P-Wave Indices in the ACCORD Blood Pressure Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are no proven strategies to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We compared standard blood pressure (BP) lowering vs. intensive BP lowering in reducing incidence of AF or P-wave indices (PWI-ECG markers of left atrial abnormality that are considered intermediate phenotypes of AF) in patients with T2DM. METHODS: We analyzed data from the ACCORD BP trial-a randomized controlled nonblinded trial (2001-2009) which randomized patients with T2DM and systolic BP (SBP) 130-180mm Hg on ≤3 antihypertensive medications aged 40-79 years with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or aged 55-79 years with subclinical CVD or ≥2 CVD risk factors to standard BP lowering (SBP <140mm Hg) vs. intensive BP lowering (SBP <120mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of incident AF and PWI. RESULTS: Data from 3,087 participants (mean age, 62.2 years; women, 48.2%; non-White, 39.2%) were analyzed. During a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, the primary outcome occurred in 1,063 participants (incidence rate, 84.5 per 1,000 person-years in the standard-therapy group vs. 73.9 per 1,000 person-years in the intensive-therapy group). The adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of intensive-therapy group for the primary outcome and for incident PWI alone were 0.87 (0.77-0.98), P = 0.02 and 0.87 (0.76-0.98), P = 0.02, respectively. The effect of intensive therapy on the incidence of AF alone did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM, intensive BP lowering reduces the incidence of the composite outcome of AF and PWI, suggesting a potential benefit from stringent BP control in patients with T2DM. clinical trials registration Trial Number NCT00000620.
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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".