Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 178

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantifying the paradoxical effect of higher systolic blood pressure on mortality in chronic heart failure

Open access
Raphael, C E, Whinnett, Z I, Davies, J E, Fontana, M, Ferenczi, E A, Manisty, C H, Mayet, J, Francis, D P·2009·Heart

Abstract

Background: Although higher blood pressures are generally recognised to be an adverse prognostic marker in risk assessment of cardiology patients, its relationship to risk in chronic heart failure (CHF) may be different. Objective: To examine systematically published reports on the relationship between blood pressure and mortality in CHF. Methods: Medline and Embase were used to identify studies that gave a hazard or relative risk ratio for systolic blood pressure in a stable population with CHF. Included studies were analysed to obtain a unified hazard ratio and quantify the degree of confidence. Results: 10 studies met the inclusion criteria, giving a total population of 8088, with 29 222 person-years of follow-up. All studies showed that a higher systolic blood pressure (SBP) was a favourable prognostic marker in CHF, in contrast to the general population where it is an indicator of poorer prognosis. The decrease in mortality rates associated with a 10 mm Hg higher SBP was 13.0% (95% CI 10.6% to 15.4%) in the heart failure population. This was not related to aetiology, ACE inhibitor or β blocker use. Conclusion: SBP is an easily measured, continuous variable that has a remarkably consistent relationship with mortality within the CHF population. The potential of this simple variable in outpatient assessment of patients with CHF should not be neglected. One possible application of this information is in the optimisation of cardiac resynchronisation devices.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/hrt.2007.134973

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 178

Metadata

Authors
Raphael, C. E., Whinnett, Z. I., Davies, J. E., Fontana, M., Ferenczi, E. A., Manisty, C. H., Mayet, J., & Francis, D. P.
Venue
Heart
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-07-24
Volume
95
Issue
1
Pages
56-62
ISSN
  • 1355-6037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-201X
OpenAlex
W2156371934
Cited by
178
References
2
FWCI
7.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantifying the paradoxical effect of higher systolic blood pressure on mortality in chronic heart failure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/hrt.2007.134973
The paper
Raphael, C. E., Whinnett, Z. I., Davies, J. E., Fontana, M., Ferenczi, E. A., Manisty, C. H., Mayet, J., & Francis, D. P. (2009). Quantifying the paradoxical effect of higher systolic blood pressure on mortality in chronic heart failure. Heart. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2007.134973

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.