MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092369915 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002640

Comparative effects of intensive-blood pressure versus standard-blood pressure-lowering treatment in patients with severe ischemic stroke in the ENCHANTED trial

2020· article· en· W3092369915 on OpenAlexaff
Jatinder S. Minhas, Xia Wang, Richard I. Lindley, Candice Delcourt, Lili Song, Mark Woodward, Tsong‐Hai Lee, Joseph P. Broderick, Octávio Marques Pontes‐Neto, Jong Sung Kim, Stefano Ricci, Pablo M. Lavados, Philip M. Bath, Alice C. Durham, Ji‐Guang Wang, Vijay K. Sharma, Andrew M. Demchuk, Sheila Cristina Ouriques Martins, John Chalmers, Craig S. Anderson, Thompson Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNIHR Leicester Biomedical Research CentreNational Health and Medical Research CouncilAmgenPfizerServierNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSanofi
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureStroke (engine)Ischemic strokeCardiologyInternal medicineAnesthesiaIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Limited data exist on the optimum level of SBP in thrombolyzed patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aimed to determine the effects of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering, specifically in patients with severe AIS who participated in the international, Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study. METHODS: Prespecificed subgroup analyzes of the BP arm of Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study, a multicenter, partial-factorial, open, blinded outcome assessed trial, in which 2227 thrombolysis-eligible and treated AIS patients with elevated SBP (>150 mmHg) were randomized to intensive (target 130-140 mmHg) or guideline-recommended (<180 mmHg) BP management. Severe stroke was defined by computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiogram confirmation of large-vessel occlusion, receipt of endovascular therapy, final diagnosis of large artery atheromatous disease, or high (>10) baseline neurological scores on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. The primary efficacy outcome was death or any disability (modified Rankin scale scores 2-6). The key safety outcome was intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Treatment effects estimated in logistic regression models are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: There were 1311 patients [mean age 67 years; 37% female; median baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale of 11 (range 6.0-15.0)] with severe AIS. Overall, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome of death or disability. However, intensive BP lowering significantly increased mortality (OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.09-2.13; P = 0.014) compared with guideline BP lowering, despite significantly lowering clinician-reported ICH (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.92; P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Intensive BP lowering is associated with increased mortality in patients with severe AIS despite lowering the risk of ICH. Further randomized trials are required to provide reliable evidence over the optimum SBP target in the most serious type of AIS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01422616.

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207