The predictive value of interarm systolic blood pressure differences in patients with vascular disease: Sub-analysis of the COMPASS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Systolic blood pressure interarm difference (IAD) predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in primary prevention populations. We examined the predictive value of IAD and the effects of treatment with the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily versus aspirin 100 mg once daily according to IAD in patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. METHODS: COMPASS trial patients with IAD <15 mmHg and IAD >15 mmHg were compared with respect to thirty-month incidence risk of: 1) composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death (MACE), 2) composite of acute limb-ischemia or vascular amputation (MALE), 3) composite of MACE or MALE, and 4) effects of treatment with the combination versus aspirin alone on these outcomes. RESULTS: 24,539 patients had IAD<15 mmHg and 2,776 had IAD ≥15 mmHg. Relative to patients with IAD ≥15 mm Hg, those with IAD<15 mmHg had similar incidence rates for all measured outcomes including the composite of MACE or MALE (HR 1.12 [95% CI: 0.95 to 1.31], p = 0.19), with the exception of stroke (HR 1.38 [95% CI: 1.02 to 1.88], p = 0.04). Compared to aspirin alone, the combination consistently reduced the composite of MACE or MALE in both IAD <15 mmHg (HR 0.74 [95% CI: 0.65-0.85], p < 0.0001, ARR = -23.1) and IAD>15 mmHg (HR 0.65 [95% CI: 0.44-0.96], p = 0.03; ARR = -32.6, p interaction = 0.53) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike primary prevention populations, measuring IAD for risk stratification purposes does not appear to be useful in patients with established vascular disease.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".