ArticleAtencion primaria2008
[Impact of the presence of cardiovascular disease on blood pressure and lipid control in the hypertense population attended in primary care].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2008. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the impact of cardiovascular disease (CVD) (heart failure, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, renal insufficiency, and peripheral arterial disease) on blood pressure (BP) and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) control in hypertense patients.
designWe analysed the subset of patients with CVD from those included in the PRESCOT study (a cross-sectional study of hypertense patients attended in primary care).
settingA total of 2000 primary care physicians participated in the study.
participantsIn an analysis of 12 954 patients (50.1% males; aged 62.1 [10.7]), good BP control was defined as <140/90 mm Hg (<130/80 mm Hg for diabetics) and good LDL-C control, according to the ATP-III stipulations for every risk group.
resultsOverall, 3294 (25.43%) patients had established CVD (mean age, 66.0 [10.2] years; 56.3% males). Of these, 82.2% had dyslipidaemia and 45.6% were diabetics (vs 72.3% and 23.9%, respectively, in non-CVD group; P< .0001). Patients with CVD were treated with more anti-hypertensives (55.7% vs 30.4% were on é2 drugs; P< .001) and more lipid-lowering drugs (67.6% vs 55.4%, P< .001) than patients without CVD. BP was controlled in 25.3% of patients with CVD versus 26.7% (P=.095); and LDL-C in 13.3% versus 40.2% (P< .001). Only 7.0% of patients with CVD were well controlled for both parameters versus 18.7% of those without CVD (P< .001). The main predictive factors of poor BP control were Diabetes (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.30), sedentary lifestyle (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.29) and female gender (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.02-1.23), among others; whilst the main factors for poor LDL-C control were a family history of CVD (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.24-1.46), sedentary lifestyle (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.18-1.39), and diabetes (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26).
conclusionsBP and LDL-C control in the hypertense population with CVD is very poor. In fact, only 7% of these patients have both parameters well controlled.
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.