MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Intensive Versus Usual Blood Pressure Control on Kidney Function Among Individuals With Prior Lacunar Stroke

2016· article· en· W2270089292 on OpenAlexaff
Carmen A. Peralta, Leslie A. McClure, Rebecca Scherzer, Michelle C. Odden, Carole L. White, Michael G. Shlipak, Oscar Benavente, Pablo E. Pérgola

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNorthern California Institute for Research and Education
KeywordsMedicineRenal functionStroke (engine)Blood pressureInternal medicineConfidence intervalKidney diseaseCardiologyCreatinineMyocardial infarctionProportional hazards modelLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The effect of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering on kidney function among individuals with established cerebrovascular disease and preserved estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is not established. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 2610 participants randomized to a lower (<130 mm Hg) versus higher (130-149 mm Hg) systolic BP target with repeated measures of serum creatinine, we evaluated differences by study arm in annualized eGFR decline and rapid decline (eGFR decline >30%) using linear mixed models and logistic regression, respectively. We assessed associations of both treatment and kidney function decline with stroke, major vascular events, and the composite of stroke, death, major vascular events, or myocardial infarction using multivariable Cox regression, separately and jointly including a test for interaction. Analyses were conducted by treatment arm. Mean age was 63±11 years; 949 participants (36%) were diabetic; and mean eGFR was 80±19 mL·min(-1)·1.73 m(-2). At 9 months, achieved systolic BP was 137±15 versus 127±14 mm Hg in the higher versus lower BP group, and differences were maintained throughout follow-up (mean, 3.2 years). Compared with the higher target, the lower BP target had a -0.50-mL·min(-1)·1.73 m(-2) per year (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.79 to -0.21) faster eGFR decline. Differences were most pronounced during the first year (-2.1 mL·min(-1)·1.73 m(-2); 95% CI, -0.97 to -3.2), whereas rates of eGFR decline did not differ after year 1 (-0.095; 95% CI, -0.47 to 0.23). A total of 313 patients (24%) in the lower BP group had rapid kidney function decline compared with 247 (19%) in the higher BP group (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.6). Differences in rapid decline by treatment arm were apparent in the first year (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8) but were not significant after year 1 (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.73-1.4). Rapid decline was associated with higher risk for stroke, major vascular events, and composite after full adjustment among individuals randomized to the higher BP target (stroke hazard ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.15-3.21) but not the lower BP arm (stroke hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.50-1.75; all P for interaction <0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prior lacunar stroke and relatively preserved kidney function, intensive BP lowering was associated with a greater likelihood of rapid kidney function decline. Differences were observed primarily during the first year of antihypertensive treatment. Rapid kidney function decline was not associated with increased risk for clinical events among those undergoing intensive BP lowering. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00059306.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations74
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207