MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885907396 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy488

Potential impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline on high blood pressure in normotensive patients with stable coronary artery disease: insights from the CLARIFY registry

2018· article· en· W2885907396 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuelle Vidal‐Petiot, Emmanuel Sorbets, Deepak L. Bhatt, Grégory Ducrocq, Yedid Elbez, Roberto Ferrari, Ian Ford, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Michał Tendera, Kim Fox, Philippe Gabríel Steg

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressureMyocardial infarctionHazard ratioCoronary artery diseaseDiastoleHeart failureGuidelineClinical endpointProportional hazards modelStroke (engine)Confidence intervalClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline on high blood pressure (BP) lowered the threshold defining hypertension and BP target in high-risk patients to 130/80 mmHg. Patients with coronary artery disease 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' patients with coronary artery disease considered as having normal BP until the recent guideline. Methods and results: Data from 5956 patients with stable coronary artery disease, no history of hypertension or heart failure, and average BP <140/90 mmHg, enrolled in the CLARIFY registry (November 2009 to June 2010), were analysed. In a multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, after a median follow-up of 5.0 years, diastolic BP 80-89 mmHg, but not systolic BP 130-139 mmHg, was associated with increased risk of the primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio 2.15, 95% confidence interval 1.22-3.81 vs. 70-79 mmHg and 1.12, 0.64-1.97 vs. 120-129 mmHg). No significant increase in risk for the primary endpoint was observed for systolic BP <120 mmHg or diastolic BP <70 mmHg. Conclusion: In patients with stable coronary artery disease defined as having normal BP according to the 140/90 mmHg threshold, diastolic BP 80-89 mmHg was associated with increased cardiovascular risk, whereas systolic BP 130-139 mmHg was not, supporting the lower diastolic but not the lower systolic BP hypertension-defining threshold and treatment target in coronary artery disease. ClinicalTrials identifier: ISRCTN43070564.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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