ArticleAtencion primaria2005
[Differential pressure as an independent factor of cardiovascular risk].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo confirm that high differential pressure (DP) supposes greater risk of ischaemic cardiopathy and to assess whether it is also an independent risk factor of suffering a cerebrovascular accident.
designAn analytical, observational, retrospective and longitudinal study with historic cohorts.
settingUrban population of about 18 000 inhabitants.
participants300 patients aged between 15 and 75 with hypertension of > or =2 years evolution, who have had their blood pressure taken by nurses 4 or more times (excluding casualty) and have not suffered a cardiovascular event (CVE), whether coronary accident, cerebrovascular accident or peripheral vasculopathy. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The history relating to cardiovascular risk was recorded: lipaemia, obesity, tobacco dependency, diabetes mellitus, left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). These factors were considered present if their diagnosis preceded the CVE diagnosis. They were placed in 2 groups, depending on the degree of differential pressure: "high" if >60 mm Hg and "not high" if (3/4)60 mm Hg. They were analysed for intention to treat over 10 years, with the appearance or not of a CVE as a response variable.
results300 participants (73.3% women), 150 exposed to risk and 150 not exposed. The initial analysis showed significant differences between the 2 groups for age (P<.0001), diabetes (P<.0001), and LVH (P<.001). After logistic regression, the OR of suffering LVH was 2.38 (95% CI, 1.19-4.74) in the group with high DP; the OR of ischaemic cardiopathy, 2.84 (95% CI, 1.16-6.96); and of cerebrovascular accident, 2.70 (95% CI, 1.09-6.68). There were no significant differences for peripheral arteriopathy.
conclusionsDP was confirmed as an independent factor of cardiovascular risk and, despite the limitations of the study, it was pointed to as a possible independent factor of cerebrovascular risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.