MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3108662664 · doi:10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.1923

Clinical outcomes from antihypertensive therapies in moderate or severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3108662664 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Sen, Erin Chung, Christopher Neil, Thomas H. Marwick

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineCardiologyEjection fractionRelative riskBlood pressureRandomized controlled trialHemodynamicsStenosisAortic valve replacementConfidence intervalHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Hypertension can negatively affect prognosis in moderate or severe aortic stenosis (AS), but antihypertensive therapy (AHT) is often avoided due to possible deleterious effects such as reduced coronary perfusion, left ventricular dysfunction and haemodynamic compromise. Purpose We systematically assessed and compared clinical outcomes in adults with moderate or severe AS treated with and without AHT. Methods Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments from a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and grey literature without language restrictions up to September 9, 2019. Conflicts were resolved by the third reviewer. Outcomes of interest included mortality, left ventricular (LV) mass index, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and LV ejection fraction. Meta-analysis with pooled effect sizes using random-effects model, were estimated in R. Results Of 3,024 citations, 30 studies (26,224 patients) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 23 studies in meta-analysis. AHT was associated with favourable clinical outcomes and was well tolerated. AHT was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (Risk Ratio (RR)=0.69, 95% CI: 0.53–0.90, p=0.01, Figure). The effect size appears to differ with type of aortic valve replacement (AVR). AHT was associated with lower risk of acute kidney injury post-transcatheter AVR (RR=0.13, 95% CI:0.05–0.35, p=0.007). Favourable outcomes such as improved haemodynamic and echocardiographic parameters were demonstrated in some studies, but when pooled in meta-analysis, the differences did not reach statistical significance. However, heterogeneity was significant across studies. Conclusion This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to demonstrate that AHT is safe and has a clinical benefit in patients with advanced stages of AS with significant improvement in survival or reduction in mortality without haemodynamic compromise. Further studies are required to determine the best AHT for patients with moderate or severe AS. Forest plot of AHT effect on mortality. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.039
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.256
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→