Table 2: Comparison of cohorts 1 and 2.

Cohort 1: 1187 patientsCohort 2: 245 patientsStatistical significance

Age59.13 yrs ± 13.960.1 yrs ± 13.6NS

N%N%
Male54746.110743.7NS
Female64053.913856.3

Adverse featuresN%N%
 High PP ≥ 50 mmHg73662.016165.7NS
 High DSBP ≥ 135 mmHg70359.214659.6NS
 High DDBP ≥ 85 mmHg51543.410141.2NS
 High NSBP ≥ 120 mmHg63954.013856.3NS
 High NDBP ≥ 75 mmHg40434.08333.9NS
 Absent ND ≤ 10%67757.013454.7NS
 High EM SBP ≥ 140 mmHg39633.47430.2NS
 High MS ≥ 20/15 mmHg55246.510643.3NS

 No. adverse featuresN%N%NS
 0635.3135.3NS
 11149.6229.0NS
 217714.93514.3NS
 316814.24317.6NS
 417614.83514.3NS
 518215.33715.1NS
 615112.73012.2NS
 711910.0239.4NS
 8373.172.9NS

Adverse Features groupsN%N%
 0–235429.87028.6
 3–552644.311546.9NS
 6–830725.96024.5

There was no significant difference between the two cohorts.
(Oneway Anova was used for comparing cohort 1 and 2 ages; cross-tabulation with chi-square Test was used to compare adverse features; no. of adverse features and adverse features groups and gender).