Evidence mapPaperPMID 34547175Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.)2021

Resistance to antihypertensive treatment and long-term risk: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study.

Magnus O Wijkman, Marcus V B Malachias, Brian L Claggett, Susan Cheng, Kunihiro Matsushita, Amil M Shah, Pardeep S Jhund, Josef Coresh, Scott D Solomon, Orly Vardeny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Leveraging Therapeutic Proteins and Peptides fromInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Magnus O WijkmanCardiovascular Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4757-9051
Marcus V B MalachiasFaculdade Ciências Médicas de Minas Gerais, Fundação Educacional Lucas Machado, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Brian L ClaggettCardiovascular Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Susan ChengCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Kunihiro MatsushitaJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7179-718X
Amil M ShahCardiovascular Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Pardeep S JhundInstitute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4306-5317
Josef CoreshJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Scott D SolomonCardiovascular Division, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Orly VardenyMinneapolis VA Health Care System and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

Late-life trajectories of cardiac function to define pathways of cardiac resilienceR01HL135008 · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · 2025 to 2025
$1.9M
Early Detection of Transthyretin Cardiac Amyloidosis: Defining a Novel Target for HFpEF Treatment and Prevention in Late LifeR01HL150342 · NHLBI · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Sharmila Dorbala, Amil M Shah · 2022 to 2022
$1.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201700001INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201700002INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201700003INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201700004INHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201700005INHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL152008NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL135008NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL143224NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL148218NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL150342
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

More stringent blood pressure (BP) goals have led to greater prevalence of apparent resistant hypertension (ARH), yet the long-term prognostic impact of ARH diagnosed according to these goals in the general population remains unknown. We assessed the prognostic impact of ARH according to contemporary BP goals in 9612 participants of the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study without previous cardiovascular disease. ARH, defined as BP above goal (traditional goal <140/90 mmHg, more stringent goal <130/80 mmHg) despite the use of ≥3 antihypertensive drug classes or any BP with ≥4 antihypertensive drug classes (one of which was required to be a diuretic) was compared with controlled hypertension (BP at goal with 1-3 antihypertensive drug classes). Cox regression models were adjusted for age, sex, race, study center, BMI, heart rate, smoking, eGFR, LDL, HDL, triglycerides, and diabetes. Using the traditional BP goal, 133 participants (3.8% of the treated) had ARH. If the more stringent BP goal was instead applied, 785 participants (22.6% of the treated) were reclassified from controlled hypertension to uncontrolled hypertension (n = 725) or to ARH (n = 60). Over a median follow-up time of 19 years, ARH was associated with increased risk for a composite end point (all-cause mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure) regardless of whether traditional (adjusted HR 1.50, 95% CI: 1.23-1.82) or more stringent (adjusted HR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.20-1.70) blood pressure goals were applied. We conclude that in patients free from cardiovascular disease, ARH predicted long-term risk regardless of whether traditional or more stringent BP criteria were applied.

Indexed as

AtherosclerosisHypertensionMyocardial InfarctionAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureHumansRisk FactorsAntihypertensive Agentsantihypertensive therapyepidemiologyresistant hypertension

Identifiers

PMID34547175
PMCPMC8678845

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.