Sentence examples for death with intensive from inspiring English sources

The UKPDS (2) demonstrated a nonsignificant 16% reduction in CV complications (combined fatal or nonfatal MI and sudden death) with intensive glycemic treatment.

In a recent meta-analysis of 26 trials (N = 13,567), which included the NICE-SUGAR data, the pooled relative risk (RR) of death with intensive insulin therapy was 0.93 as compared with conventional therapy (95% CI 0.83 1.04) (418).

An excess of 54 deaths with intensive therapy, even though perhaps not statistically compelling, would cause grave concern.

For example, the significant increase in death associated with intensive therapy of patients with existing CVD and/or CV risk in the ACCORD trial was not observed in the other studies [ 8].

Having had a severe hypoglycemic event did increase risk of later death with both intensive and standard treatments, but participants using the intensive strategy who had at least one severe event were less likely to die at a later time than those using the standard treatment who had experienced a severe event.

The risk of death with the intensive strategy increased approximately linearly from 6 9% A1C and appeared to be greater with the intensive than with the standard strategy only when average A1C was >7%.

This death was associated with intensive radiochemotherapy (RCT) but could also occur in adjuvant RCT with 5-FU.

The excess of deaths with the intensive glycemic treatment strategy was indeed not large, a 22% relative increase from 1.1 to 1.4% of participants affected per year (1).

Our treatment goals were adapted from the Steno-2 Study, which showed reduced end stage kidney failure, cardiovascular events, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from all causes with intensive treatment of type 2 diabetes.

However, the reduction in the primary outcome of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke or death from cardiovascular cause with intensive therapy was not significant.

Statistically, the finding of increased risk of mortality (HR = 1.22, P = 0.04) was the third most significant of 5 secondary outcomes assessed in Gerstein and colleagues (2), there being a 24% risk reduction of nonfatal myocardial infarction (P = 0.004) and a 35% risk increase of cardiovascular death (P = 0.02) with intensive versus standard therapy.