MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2807154306 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy287

Achieved diastolic blood pressure and pulse pressure at target systolic blood pressure (120–140 mmHg) and cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients: results from ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials

2018· article· en· W2807154306 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Böhm, Helmut Schumacher, Koon Teo, Eva Lonn, Felix Mahfoud, Johannes F.E. Mann, Giuseppe Mancia, Josep Redón, Roland E. Schmieder, Michael A. Weber, Karen Sliwa, Bryan Williams, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersMedical Research CouncilDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftCalifornia Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsMedicineRamiprilTelmisartanBlood pressureCardiologyInternal medicinePulse pressureMyocardial infarctionHeart failureStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: Current guidelines of hypertensive management recommend upper limits for systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). J-curve associations of BP with risk exist for some outcomes suggesting that lower limits of DBP goals may also apply. We examined the association between mean attained DBP and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients who achieved an on-treatment SBP in the range of 120 to <140 mmHg in the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET) and Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant participants with cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) trials on patients with high CV risk. This SBP range was associated with the lowest CV risk. Methods: We analysed the outcome data from patients age 55 years or older with CV disease from the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials that randomized high-risk patients to ramipril, telmisartan, and the combination. In patients with controlled SBP (on-treatment 120 to <140 mmHg), the composite outcome of CV death, myocardial infarction, stroke and hospital admission for heart failure, the components thereof, and all-cause mortality were analysed according to mean on-treatment DBP as categorical (<70, 70 to <80, 80 to <90, and ≥90 mmHg) and continuous variable as well as the change of DBP according to baseline DBP. Pulse pressure (PP) was related to outcomes as a continuous variable. Results: In 16 099 of 31 546 patients, mean achieved SBP was 120 to <140 mmHg. The nominally lowest risk for all outcomes was observed at an achieved DBP of 70 to <80 mmHg. A higher achieved DBP was associated with a higher risk for the outcomes of stroke and of hospitalization for heart failure (≥80 mmHg) and myocardial infarction (≥90 mmHg). A lower achieved DBP (<70 mmHg) was associated with a higher risk for the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.29, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.15-1.45; P < 0.0001], myocardial infarction HR 1.54 (95% CI 1.26-1.88, P < 0.0001) and hospitalization for heart failure HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.47-2.24, P < 0.0001) and all-cause death (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04-1.35; P < 0.0001) while there was no signal for stroke and CV death compared to DBP 70 to <80 mmHg. A decrease of DBP was associated with lower risk when baseline DBP was >80 mmHg. The associations to outcomes were similar when patients were divided to SBP 120 to <130 mmHg or 130 to <140 mmHg for DBP or PP. Conclusion: Compared to a DBP of 70 to <80 mmHg, lower and higher DBP was associated with a higher risk in patients achieving a SBP of 120 to <140 mmHg. Associations of DBP and PP to risk were similar notably at controlled SBP. These data suggest at optimal achieved SBP, risk is still defined by low or high DBP. These findings support guidelines which take DBP at optimal SBP control into consideration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations130
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207