P0154BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE AND MORTALITY RISK: A POPULATION-BASED PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aims Current guidelines on the management of heart failure (HF) recommend control of blood pressure (BP) in elderly patients. However, the exact treatment goals in this vulnerable population are unclear. Thus, our population-based prospective cohort study aimed to assess whether BP values <140/90 mmHg are associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular (CV) death and all-cause mortality in HF patients ≥70 years. Method The study included participants of the Berlin Initiative Study (BIS), all ≥70 years, who were treated with antihypertensive drugs and had a diagnosis of HF (ICD-10 codes: I11.0, I13.0, I13.2, I50.x) at baseline. The study period was from 2009 to 2017. Demographics, lifestyle factors, medications, and comorbidities were assessed in face-to-face interviews and from linked administrative healthcare data. Outcomes were adjudicated using death certificates and hospital discharge notes. Cox proportional hazards models yielded crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of CV death and all-cause mortality associated with normalized BP (systolic BP <140 mmHg and diastolic BP <90 mmHg) compared with non-normalized BP (systolic BP ≥140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg) in patients with HF. In sensitivity analyses we restricted to high-risk HF patients (≥80 years or with previous CV events). We also repeated the analyses in patients without HF to assess a potential effect modification. Results Among 1623 BIS participants treated with antihypertensive drugs at baseline, 544 (33.5%) had a diagnosis of HF. Of those, 255 (46.9%) showed normalized BP and 289 (53.1%) had non-normalized values. Mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 82.8 (6.8) years (45.4% female). Selected patient characteristics are shown in the Table. Median (interquartile range) duration of follow-up was 6.7 (4.1-7.3) years. Compared with non-normalized BP, normalized BP was associated with a numerically increased risk of CV death (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.90-2.17) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.96-1.71) in patients with HF. The associations were more pronounced or reached statistical significance when restricting to HF patients ≥80 years (CV death: HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.94-2.53 / all-cause mortality: HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.11-2.18) or HF patients with previous CV events (CV death: HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.29 / all-cause mortality: HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.85-2.07) (Figure). The effect estimates in patients without HF were comparable to those with HF (CV death: HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.78-1.78; p for interaction, 0.695 / all-cause mortality: HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.93-1.54; p for interaction, 0.604). Conclusion Our study suggests that normalized BP does not decrease the risk of CV death or all-cause mortality in elderly patients with HF and it could even increase the risk especially in high-risk subgroups. Thus, individualized benefit-risk assessment is required for the pharmacotherapy of HF in this vulnerable population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".