Blood pressure and in-hospital outcomes in patients presenting with ischaemic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Post-stroke hypertension is associated with poor short-term outcome, although the results have been conflicting. Our objective was to evaluate the association of blood pressure (BP) and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the Get With The Guidelines-Stroke registry with acute ischaemic stroke were included. Admission systolic and diastolic BP was used to compute mean arterial pressure (MAP) and pulse pressure (PP). The outcomes of interest were: in-hospital mortality, not discharged home, inability to ambulate independently at discharge and haemorrhagic complications due to thrombolytic therapy. A total of 309 611 patients with an ischaemic stroke were included. There was a J-shaped/U-shaped relationship between systolic BP and outcomes. Both lower and higher systolic BP values, compared with a central reference value, had higher risk of in-hospital death [e.g. adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) (OR[CI]) = 1.16[1.13-1.20] for 120 vs. 150 mmHg and 1.24[1.19-1.30] for 200 vs. 150 mmHg], not discharged home (OR[CI] = 1.11[1.09-1.13] for 120 vs. 150 mmHg and 1.15[1.12-1.18] for 200 vs. 150 mmHg), inability to ambulate independently at discharge (OR[CI] = 1.16[1.13-1.18] for 120 vs. 150 mmHg and 1.09[1.06-1.11] for 200 vs. 150 mmHg). However, risk of haemorrhagic complications of thrombolytic therapy was lower with lower systolic BP (OR[CI] = 0.89[0.83-0.97] for 120 vs. 150 mmHg), while higher with higher systolic BP (OR[CI] = 1.21[1.11-1.32] for 200 vs. 150 mmHg). The results were largely similar for admission diastolic BP, MAP, and PP. CONCLUSION: In patients hospitalized with ischaemic stroke, J-shaped, or U-shaped relationships were observed between BP variables and short-term outcomes. However, haemorrhagic complications with thrombolytic therapy were lower with lower BP.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".