ReviewExpert review of cardiovascular therapy2018
Optimal medical treatment of hypertension in patients with coronary artery disease.
Review in Expert review of cardiovascular therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Intensive blood pressure treatment in coronary artery disease: implications from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT).Journal of human hypertension · 2022Trial
- Elevated ASGR1 as a Potential Diagnostic Biomarker for Coronary Artery Disease and Predictor of Adverse Outcomes in Hypertensive Patients.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026Article
- Plasma metabolic profiling reveals exploratory metabolic differences in chronic coronary syndrome with coronary artery calcification.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Towards Optimal Cardiovascular Health: A Comprehensive Review of Preventive Strategies.Cureus · 2024Review
- Article
- Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Is Not Superior to Optimal Medical Therapy in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Hypertension evaluated in the public and private Brazilian health system hypertension in public and private service.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- 2023 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology on the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Coronary Syndrome.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2023Article
- Brazilian Guidelines of Hypertension - 2020.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionCoronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, and hypertension is its most prevalent modifiable risk factor. Patients with CAD and concomitant hypertension are a special population with distinct physiologic and structural alterations. Optimal blood pressure (BP) control in this population has been linked with reduction in adverse outcomes, however, excessive lowering of BP could jeopardize myocardial and cerebral perfusion. Areas covered: Authors highlight the prevalence of the CAD and hypertension dyad, as well as the implications of various structural and physiological changes in this population. Subsequently, available data on optimal BP targets in such patients, and lastly the J-curve phenomenon as well as antihypertensive agent use are discussed. Expert commentary: Current guideline recommendations are based on data from trials such as SPRINT and ACCORD which did not specifically focus on the CAD population. Based on data from observational studies and post hoc analyses, the best therapeutic systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) targets may be ~ 130 mmHg and ~ 80 mmHg, respectively. Caution should be taken to not lower SBP below 120 mmHg and DBP below 60 mmHg.
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.