MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033392374 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfaa142.p0154

P0154BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL IN ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH HEART FAILURE AND MORTALITY RISK: A POPULATION-BASED PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY

2020· article· en· W3033392374 on OpenAlexaff
Antonios Douros, Alice Schneider, Dörte Huscher, Natalie Ebert, Nina Mielke, Markus van der Giet, Elke Schäeffner

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureHazard ratioBlood pressureInternal medicinePopulationProspective cohort studyProportional hazards modelCohortDiastoleCardiologyCohort studyConfidence intervalEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.234
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 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207