Is Blood Pressure Lowering in the Very Elderly With Previous Stroke Associated With a Higher Risk of Adverse Events?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We investigated whether blood pressure lowering for secondary prevention is associated with a reduction in recurrent stroke risk and/or a higher risk of adverse events in very elderly compared with younger trial participants. Methods and Results This is a random effects meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials of blood pressure lowering for secondary stroke prevention to evaluate age‐stratified (<80, ≥80 years) risk of adverse events. Ovid‐MEDLINE was searched for trials between 1970 and 2020. Summary‐level data were acquired including outcomes of stroke, cardiovascular events, mortality, and adverse events. Seven trials were included comprising 38 596 participants, of whom 2336 (6.1%) were aged ≥80 years. There was an overall reduction in stroke risk in the intervention group compared with controls (risk ratio [RR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.80, 0.98], I 2 =49%), and the magnitude of risk reduction did not differ by age subgroup (<80, ≥80 years). There was no increase in the risk of hypotensive symptoms in the intervention group for patients aged <80 years (RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.99], 1.44, I 2 =0%), but there was an increased risk in those ≥80 years (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.22], 3.86, I 2 =0%). No increase was observed in the risk of falls, syncope, study withdrawal, or falls in either age subgroup. Conclusions Very elderly people in secondary prevention trials of blood pressure lowering have an increased risk of hypotensive symptoms, but with no statistical increase in the risk of falls, syncope, or mortality. However, evidence is lacking for frail elderly with multiple comorbidities who may be more vulnerable to adverse effects of blood pressure lowering.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".