MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903732799 · doi:10.1161/hyp.72.suppl_1.p375

Abstract P375: Association Between Use of Alpha-Blockers and Hypotension and Hypotension-Related Clinical Events in Patients With Hypertension

2018· article· en· W2903732799 on OpenAlexaffabout
Swapnil Hiremath, Marcel Ruzicka, Manish M. Sood

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectProportional hazards modelRetrospective cohort studySyncope (phonology)Blood pressurePropensity score matchingInternal medicinePopulationAnesthesiaCohort studyEmergency department

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Alpha- blockers (AB) are commonly prescribed agents in the treatment of hypertension. Little is known regarding the risk of hypotension and hypotension-related clinical outcomes in patients with advanced age with ongoing treatment for hypertension. Objective: To assess the risk of hypotension and hypotension-related adverse events (syncope, falls, fractures), major adverse cardiac events and all-cause mortality with AB use compared to other anti-hypertensives. Methods: Population-based, retrospective cohort study of 933,033 eligible adults of advanced age (> 66 years) prescribed an anti-hypertensive medication between 1995 and 2015 in Ontario, Canada. A high dimensional propensity score was used to match AB prescription to other anti-hypertensives. AB exposure was modeled as a time-varying and cumulative covariate using extended, conditional Cox proportional hazards to examine the association with outcomes. Primary outcome was hospitalization or emergency room usage for hypotension and related complications (syncope, fractures, falls). Secondary outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. Results: Among 69,092 matched patients prescribed AB, the incident rate of hypotension related complications were higher compared to other anti-hypertensives (hypotension 1.15 vs. 0.39, syncope 1.47 vs. 0.46, falls 4.37 vs. 1.37, fractures 2.23 vs. 0.69 per 100 person-years of follow-up). In time-varying exposure models with additional adjustment for the total number of anti-hypertensives, the higher risk persisted (hypotension HR 1.34 95%CI 1.26-1.43, syncope HR 1.49 95%CI 1.41-1.57, falls HR 1.27 95%CI 1.23-1.32, HR fractures 1.41 95%CI 1.34-1.48). Secondary outcomes of MACE and all-cause mortality were higher or similar among AB users (MACE IR 7.03 vs. 2.31, mortality 6.54 vs 6.37 per 100 person-years follow-up). The risk was highest among those > 85 and differed by the number of total anti-hypertensives prescribed. Conclusions: The use of AB is associated with a higher risk of hypotension-related events and other complications. Our findings suggest other anti-hypertensive agents be considered especially among those of advanced age or based on the number of total anti-hypertensive agents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207