Association between blood pressure and new brain white matter lesions in atrial fibrillation patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) and hypertension (HTN) often occur together. A cross-sectional study in patients with AF has shown that blood pressure (BP) is associated with white matter lesions (WML), which are known to have a negative impact on cognitive function. Purpose We aimed to investigate the association of BP and new WML occurring in patients with AF during a follow-up of 2 years. Methods We enrolled 1129 patients with documented AF who underwent a standardized brain magnetic resonance imaging (bMRI) at baseline and after 2-years follow-up. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) were measured at baseline in every patient. BP was categorized into the following groups: optimal BP (SBP <120 mmHg and DBP <80 mmHg); normal BP (SBP ≥120 and <130 mmHg or DBP ≥80 and <85 mmHg); high normal BP (SBP ≥130 and <140 mmHg or DBP ≥85 and <90 mmHg); HTN grade 1 (SBP ≥140 and <160 mmHg or DBP ≥90 and <100 mmHg); HTN grade 2 and 3 (SBP ≥160 or DBP ≥100 mmHg). We defined new WML as new lesions or preexisting lesions with an increased volume after a 2-year follow-up period. We performed logistic and linear regression analyses to examine the relationship of BP, BP categories and the presence and volume of new WML. Additionally, interaction analyses were performed to evaluate the potential modifying effect of AF type (paroxysmal vs. non-paroxysmal) and heart rhythm (AF/atrial flutter vs. sinus rhythm). Results The mean ± standard deviation age was 71.5 ±8.4 years, 909 (74%) patients were male, and the mean BP was 135/79 ±18/12 mmHg. At baseline, WML were present in 98.9% of patients, with a median (interquartile range) volume of 3362 (1241 – 8650) mm³. The overall prevalence of new WML after 2 years was 18.8%, with a median volume of 108 (46.5 – 264) mm³. The prevalence of new WML stratified by BP categories is presented in Figure 1. After adjusting for multiple covariates, the presence of new WML was not significantly associated with BP categories or continuous SBP (Table 1). Compared to patients with optimal BP, the adjusted odds ratios (OR) (95% Confidence Intervals) were 1.40 (0.86 to 2.29) for normal BP; 1.13 (0.69 to 1.85) for high normal BP; 1.09 (0.69 to 1.76) for HTN grade 1; and 1.20 (0.67 to 2.11) for HTN grade 2 and 3 (p for linear trend 0.86). Per 10 mmHg increase in SBP, the adjusted OR was 0.97 (0.89 to 1.05, p= 0.46). Similarly, BP was not associated with volume of new WML. AF type and heart rhythm did not show any significant interaction effect for the association between SBP and presence of new WML (p-value for interaction of p=0.16 and p=0.57, respectively). Conclusions In a large cohort of AF patients, we found no association between BP and the presence and volume of new WML after a follow-up of 2 years. Long-term follow-up is warranted to determine the impact of BP on the development of new WML over time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".