MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE 2017 ACC/AHA HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE GUIDELINE IN NORMOTENSIVE PATIENTS WITH STABLE CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE

2018· article· en· W2805271607 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuelle Vidal‐Petiot, Emmanuel Sorbets, Deepak L. Bhatt, Grégory Ducrocq, Yedid Elbez, Roberto Ferrari, Ian Ford, J.‐C. Tardif, Michał Tendera, K. Fox, Philippe Gabríel Steg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressureCoronary artery diseaseMyocardial infarctionGuidelineClinical endpointHeart failureDiastoleUnstable anginaAnginaStroke (engine)Clinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The 2017ACC/AHA high blood pressure (BP) guideline lowered the threshold defining hypertension and BP target in high-risk patients to 130/80 mmHg, Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and systolic BP 130–139 mmHg or diastolic BP 80–89 mmHg should now receive medication to achieve this target. We aimed to investigate the relationship between BP and cardiovascular events in “real-life” CAD patients considered as normotensive until the recent guideline. Design and method: Data from patients with stable CAD, with no history of hypertension and baseline BP < 140/90 mmHg, receiving > = 1 BP-lowering medication prescribed for angina, enrolled in the international CLARIFY registry from November 2009 to June 2010, were analyzed. Patients with heart failure were excluded. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between average BP during follow-up and cardiovascular outcomes. SBP subgroups were defined as < 120 mmHg, 120–129 mmHg (reference), 130–139 mmHg, and > = 140 mmHg. DBP subgroups were defined as < 60, 60–69 mmHg, 70–79 mmHg (reference), 80–89 mmHg, and > = 90 mmHg. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke, and secondary endpoints were each component of the primary endpoint. Results: In 5826 patients (median follow-up 5.0 years), diastolic BP 80–89 mmHg, but not systolic BP 130–139 mmHg, was associated with an increased risk of the primary endpoint (adjusted HRs 1.81, 95% CI 1.09–2.99, and 0.80, 95%CI 0.46–1.40, versus 70–79 mmHg and 120–129 mmHg, respectively). Similar results were observed for cardiovascular death and stroke. No significantly increased risk was observed for systolic BP < 120 mmHg for either endpoint (HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.76 - 2.07, for the primary endpoint). Diastolic BP < 70 mmHg was associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome, but the same was observed for stroke, suggesting a degree of reverse causality. Conclusions: In this population of stable CAD patients defined as normotensive according to the 140/90 mmHg threshold, and receiving antianginal BP-lowering medication, achieved diastolic BP 80–89 mmHg was associated with increased cardiovascular risk while achieved systolic BP 130–139 mmHg was not, supporting the lower diastolic but the not the lower systolic BP hypertension-defining threshold and treatment target.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207