Cardiovascular outcome in treatment-resistant hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess cardiovascular outcome in patients with treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) compared with patients with nontreatment-resistant hypertension (HTN). METHODS: Cohort study with data from 2006 to 2012 derived from the Swedish Primary Care Cardiovascular Database with hypertensive patients aged at least 30 years. TRH was defined as blood pressure at least 140/90 mmHg despite medication adherence to three or more dispensed antihypertensive drug classes. Patients with cardiovascular comorbidity were excluded. The association between TRH and cardiovascular events with adjustment for important confounders was analyzed. RESULTS: We included 4317 TRH patients and 32 282 HTN patients. TRH patients (61% women) were older (70 vs. 66 years), had higher SBP (152 vs. 141 mmHg) and more diabetes (30 vs. 20%) (P < 0.001 for all) compared with HTN patients. Mean follow-up time was 4.3 years. In the adjusted analysis, TRH patients had an increased risk for total mortality [hazard ratio 1.12; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.23], cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.40) and incident heart failure (hazard ratio 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17-1.54) but not for incident stroke (hazard ratio 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.19) or transitoric ischemic attack (hazard ratio 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.46) compared with HTN patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with TRH have a poor prognosis beyond blood pressure level, compared with hypertensive patients without TRH. In particular, the high risk for heart failure is of clinical importance and merits further investigation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".