Empagliflozin in resistant hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the EMPEROR-Preserved trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Hypertension has a high prevalence in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), which can be controlled, uncontrolled, or even resistant. The effects of empagliflozin on systolic blood pressure (SBP), time in target range, incidence of hypertensive urgencies, and studied cardiovascular and renal outcomes in different hypertension categories and after treatment with empagliflozin in the EMPEROR-Preserved trial were explored. METHODS: A total of 5533 patients were studied and the population was separated into resistant (resHTN), uncontrolled (uctrHTN), and controlled (ctrHTN) hypertension. The effect of SBP on outcomes and treatment effects of empagliflozin were explored. Analyses were done with Cox regression analyses adjusted for demographic and clinical confounders and with a mixed model for repeated measures. RESULTS: Empagliflozin reduced SBP in resHTN slightly more than in the other categories in the first weeks, while thereafter there were no significant differences. The modest reduction in SBP resulted in a moderate increase in time at target and reduced hypertensive urgencies. The primary endpoint was more prevalent in resHTN (P = .0358), but the treatment effect of empagliflozin on the primary endpoint was similar in resHTN, uctrHTN, and ctrHTN (P for interaction = .92) as was the improvement of the estimated glomerular filtration rate slope (P for interaction = .95) and change in quality of life by empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: In HFpEF, the prevalence of resHTN is high and is associated with frequently higher outcome rates compared with ctrHTN and uctrHTN. The treatment effect was not modified by hypertension categories. This indicates that in HFpEF, moderate modifications of blood pressure do not affect overall outcomes and treatment effects of empagliflozin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".