MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiac Remodeling After Hypertensive Pregnancy Following Physician-Optimized Blood Pressure Self-Management: The POP-HT Randomized Clinical Trial Imaging Substudy

2023· article· en· W4388590264 on OpenAlexaff
Jamie Kitt, Samuel Krasner, Logan C. Barr, Annabelle Frost, Katherine L. Tucker, Paul Bateman, Katie Suriano, Yvonne Kenworthy, Winok Lapidaire, Miriam Lacharie, Rebecca Mills, Cristian Román, Lucy Mackillop, Alexandra Cairns, Christina Aye, Vanessa M. Ferreira, Stefan K. Piechnik, Elena Lukaschuk, B. Thilaganathan, Lucy C. Chappell, Adam J. Lewandowski, Richard J. McManus, Paul Leeson

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordBritish Heart FoundationMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureRandomized controlled trialPregnancyPostpartum periodCardiologyCardiac magnetic resonance imagingMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicinePreeclampsiaAdverse effectObstetricsRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive pregnancy disorders are associated with adverse cardiac remodeling, which can fail to reverse in the postpartum period in some women. The Physician-Optimized Postpartum Hypertension Treatment trial demonstrated that improved blood pressure control while the cardiovascular system recovers postpartum associates with persistently reduced blood pressure. We now report the effect on cardiac remodeling. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end point trial, in a single UK hospital, 220 women were randomly assigned 1:1 to self-monitoring with research physician-optimized antihypertensive titration or usual postnatal care from a primary care physician and midwife. Participants were 18 years of age or older, with preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, requiring antihypertensives on hospital discharge postnatally. Prespecified secondary cardiac imaging outcomes were recorded by echocardiography around delivery, and again at blood pressure primary outcome assessment, around 9 months postpartum, when cardiovascular magnetic resonance was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 187 women (101 intervention; 86 usual care) underwent echocardiography at baseline and follow-up, at a mean 258±14.6 days postpartum, of which 174 (93 intervention; 81 usual care) also had cardiovascular magnetic resonance at follow-up. Relative wall thickness by echocardiography was 0.06 (95% CI, 0.07–0.05; P <0.001) lower in the intervention group between baseline and follow-up, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance at follow-up demonstrated a lower left ventricular mass (–6.37 g/m 2 ; 95% CI, –7.99 to –4.74; P <0.001), end-diastolic volume (–3.87 mL/m 2 ; 95% CI, –6.77 to –0.98; P =0.009), and end-systolic volume (–3.25 mL/m 2 ; 95% CI, 4.87 to –1.63; P <0.001) and higher left and right ventricular ejection fraction by 2.6% (95% CI, 1.3–3.9; P <0.001) and 2.8% (95% CI, 1.4–4.1; P <0.001), respectively. Echocardiography-assessed left ventricular diastolic function demonstrated a mean difference in average E/E’ of 0.52 (95% CI, –0.97 to –0.07; P =0.024) and a reduction in left atrial volumes of –4.33 mL/m 2 (95% CI, –5.52 to –3.21; P <0.001) between baseline and follow-up when adjusted for baseline differences in measures. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term postnatal optimization of blood pressure control after hypertensive pregnancy, through self-monitoring and physician-guided antihypertensive titration, associates with long-term changes in cardiovascular structure and function, in a pattern associated with more favorable cardiovascular outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04273854.

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations63
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207