Blood Pressure, Hypertension, and the Risk of Aortic Dissection Incidence and Mortality: Results From the J-SCH Study, the UK Biobank Study, and a Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertension or elevated blood pressure (BP) is an important risk factor for aortic dissection (AD); however, few prospective studies on this topic have been published. We investigated the association between hypertension/elevated BP and AD in 2 cohorts and conducted a meta-analysis of published prospective studies, including these 2 studies. Methods: We analyzed data from the J-SHC study (Japan-Specific Health Checkups) and UK Biobank, which prospectively followed up 534 378 and 502 424 participants, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% CIs for the association of hypertension/elevated BP with AD incidence in the UK Biobank and AD mortality in the J-SHC Study. In the meta-analysis, summary relative risks were calculated with random-effects models. A potential nonlinear dose-response relationship between BP and AD was tested with fractional polynomial models, and the best-fitting second-order fractional polynomial regression model was determined. Results: In the J-SHC study and UK Biobank, there were 84 and 182 ADs during the 4- and 9-year follow-up, and the adjusted hazard ratios of AD were 3.57 (95% CI, 2.17–6.11) and 2.68 (95% CI, 1.78–4.04) in hypertensive individuals, 1.33 (95% CI, 1.05–1.68) and 1.27 (95% CI, 1.11–1.48) per 20–mm Hg increase in systolic BP (SBP), and 1.67 (95% CI, 1.40–2.00) and 1.66 (95% CI, 1.46–1.89) per 10-mm Hg increase in diastolic BP (DBP), respectively. In the meta-analysis, the summary relative risks were 3.07 (95% CI, 2.15–4.38, I 2 =76.7%, n=7 studies, 2818 ADs, 4 563 501 participants) for hypertension and 1.39 (95% CI, 1.16–1.66, I 2 =47.7%, n=3) and 1.79 (95% CI: 1.51–2.12, I 2 = 57.0%, n=3) per 20–mm Hg increase in SBP and per 10–mm Hg increase in DBP, respectively. The AD risk showed a strong, positive dose-response relationship with SBP and even more so with DBP. The risk of AD in the nonlinear dose-response analysis was significant at SBP >132 mm Hg and DBP >75 mm Hg. Conclusions: Hypertension and elevated SBP and DBP are associated with a high risk of AD. The risk of AD was positively dose dependent, even within the normal BP range. These findings provide further evidence for the optimization of BP to prevent AD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".