MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415262742 · doi:10.1161/hyp.82.suppl_1.th145

Abstract TH145: Renin–Angiotensin System Blockade in Non-Hypertensive Diseases: A Systematic Review of Cardiorenal Outcomes

2025· article· en· W4415262742 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vyom Patel, Inshal Jawed, Maqbool Qadir, Umme Farwa, Aizaz Anwar Khalid, Muhammad Chaudhary

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood pressureBlockadeObservational studyHeart failureKidneyRenin–angiotensin systemACE inhibitorCardiorenal syndrome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: ACE inhibitors and ARBs are often given for high blood pressure, and protect organs in specific situations, regardless of whether blood pressure improves. Treatment guidelines recommend using RAS blockade in patients with heart failure and diabetic kidney disease, even if not hypertensive. However, we lack a full review of the results when RAS inhibitors are used in non-hypertensive groups. Our review assessed how RAS inhibitors affected patients without hypertension in different diseases. Hypothesis: The system that includes renin and angiotensin (RAS) can cause organ-specific effects that are not directly tied to blood pressure control. This means that RAS blocker medications can provide organ protection for normotensive patients by targeting tissue RAS, inflammation, and changes in tissue structure caused by fibrosis. Methods: We followed PRISMA standards to search for research on ACE inhibitor or ARB medicines given to patients who never had hypertension (normotensive), and looked at cardiovascular and renal results.15 studies reviewed (10 RCTs and 5 observational studies) patients with heart failure, normal blood pressure, and diabetic kidney disease. Ejection fraction, kidney function, and mortality statistics were collected from the clinical endpoints. We assessed quality using Cochrane Risk of Bias, and for observational research, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: RAS blockade protected multiple organs in patients without high blood pressure. Among patients with HFrEF and normal or reduced BP at baseline, ACE inhibitors and ARBs showed the same life improvements as in hypertensive patients. Among patients with normal blood pressure and microalbuminuria, using RAS blockers slowed the progression of kidney disease (a positive reduction in albuminuria) progression. In one Marfan syndrome study, patients with no high blood pressure derived aortic protection from using an ARB. Although, data did match these benefits, possible influence by other factors was also noted. The research was solid for RCTs (low chance of bias) and backed up by real data. Conclusions: A key finding is that RAS blockers lower the risk of kidney and heart disease, even without high blood pressure. They provide multiple benefits, these drugs are now recommended for some people with normal blood pressure to prevent damage to the organs. More studies are needed to improve how people are chosen for treatment and to confirm how well this strategy works long-term.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertensionSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207