Abstract 20: Higher Stroke Risk With Lower Blood Pressure in Hemodynamic Vertebrobasilar Disease: Analysis From the Prospective Multicenter VERiTAS Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Despite theoretical concerns regarding hypoperfusion in patients with large artery occlusive disease, strict blood pressure (BP) control has become adopted as a safe strategy for stroke risk reduction. We examined the relationship between BP control, flow, and risk of subsequent stroke in the prospective Vertebrobasilar Flow Evaluation and Risk of Transient Ischemic Attack and Stroke (VERiTAS) Study. Hypothesis: Strict BP control may be less efficacious and safe in flow compromised patients with symptomatic vertebrobasilar (VB) disease. Methods: VERiTAS enrolled patients with recent VB TIA or stroke and ≥50% atherosclerotic stenosis or occlusion of vertebral or basilar arteries. Hemodynamic status using large vessel flow in the VB territory was designated as low or normal flow using quantitative MRA. Patients underwent standard medical management and follow-up for primary outcome event of VB territory stroke. Mean SBP during follow-up (<140 vs. ≥140 mm Hg) and flow status were examined relative to subsequent stroke risk using Cox proportional hazards analysis. Results: The 72 enrolled subjects had an average of 3.8±1.2 BP recordings over the 20 ±8 months of follow-up; 40 (56%) had mean SBP of <140 mm Hg. The BP groups were largely comparable for baseline demographics, risk factors, and stenosis severity. There was a trend to a higher risk of subsequent stroke in patients with SBP <140 mm Hg (20% vs. 6.2%, p=0.17). As shown in the Figure, comparing subgroups stratified by SBP and hemodynamic status revealed that patients with both low flow and SBP <140 mm Hg (n=10) had a higher risk of subsequent stroke with HR 4.5 (CI 1.3-16.0, p=0.02) compared to the other subgroups combined. Conclusion: Among a subgroup of patients with VB disease and low flow, strict BP control (SBP <140) appears to increase the risk of recurrent stroke. This finding within a modest sized cohort supports the strategy of hemodynamic assessment to inform decision making regarding BP management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".