MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134436843 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002822

Cardiovascular outcomes in patients at high cardiovascular risk with previous myocardial infarction or stroke

2021· article· en· W3134436843 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Böhm, Helmut Schumacher, Koon Teo, Eva Lonn, Lucas Lauder, Giuseppe Mancia, Josep Redón, Roland E. Schmieder, Karen Sliwa, Nikolaus Marx, Michael A. Weber, Bryan Williams, Salim Yusuf, Johannes F.E. Mann, Felix Mahfoud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineRamiprilMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineStroke (engine)Hazard ratioTelmisartanBlood pressureCardiologyProportional hazards modelConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend to start blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs also according to cardiovascular risk including history of cardiovascular events. We hypothesized that in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, both or none of those, the index events predict the next event and have different SBP risk associations to different cardiovascular outcomes. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: In this pooled posthoc, nonprespecified analysis, we assessed outcome data from high-risk patients aged 55 years or older with a history of cardiovascular events or proven cardiovascular disease, randomized to the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial and to Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease Trial investigating telmisartan, ramipril and their combination with a median follow-up of 56 months. Standardized office BP was measured every 6 months. Associations of mean achieved BP on treatment were investigated on MI, stroke and cardiovascular death. We identified patients with previous MI (N = 13 487), stroke (N = 4985), both (N = 1509) or none (N = 10 956) of these index events. Analyses were done by Cox regression, analysis of variance and Chi2-test. 30 937 patients with complete data were enrolled between 1 December 2001 and 31 July 2003, and followed until 31 July 2008. Data of both trials were pooled as the outcomes were similar. RESULTS: Patients with MI as index event had a higher risk to experience a second MI [hazard ratio 1.42 (confidence interval (CI) 1.20-1.69), P < 0.0001] compared with patients with no events but no increased risk for a stroke as a next event [hazard ratio 0.95 (CI 0.73-1.23), n.s.]. The risk was roughly doubled when they had both, MI and stroke before [hazard ratio 2.07 (CI 1.58-2.71), P < 0.0001]. Patients with a stroke history had a roughly three-fold higher likelihood to experience a second stroke [hazard ratio 2.89 (CI 2.37-3.53) P < 0.0001] but not MI [hazard ratio 1.07 (CI 0.88-1.32), n.s.]. Both types of index events increased roughly three-fold the risk of a second stroke compared with no previous events. The SBP-risk relationship was not meaningfully altered by the event history. After MI and stroke the risk for subsequent events and cardiovascular death was increased over the whole SBP spectrum. A J-shape relationship between BP and outcome was only observed for cardiovascular death. CONCLUSION: Previous MI and previous stroke are associated with increased risk for the same event in the future, independent of achieved SBP. Thus, secondary prevention may also be chosen according to the event history of patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00153101.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207