↓ Skip to main content

Resistant Hypertension: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation, June 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1127 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Resistant Hypertension: Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment
Published in
Circulation, June 2008
DOI 10.1161/circulationaha.108.189141
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A Calhoun, Daniel Jones, Stephen Textor, David C Goff, Timothy P Murphy, Robert D Toto, Anthony White, William C Cushman, William White, Domenic Sica, Keith Ferdinand, Thomas D Giles, Bonita Falkner, Robert M Carey

Abstract

Resistant hypertension is a common clinical problem faced by both primary care clinicians and specialists. While the exact prevalence of resistant hypertension is unknown, clinical trials suggest that it is not rare, involving perhaps 20% to 30% of study participants. As older age and obesity are 2 of the strongest risk factors for uncontrolled hypertension, the incidence of resistant hypertension will likely increase as the population becomes more elderly and heavier. The prognosis of resistant hypertension is unknown, but cardiovascular risk is undoubtedly increased as patients often have a history of long-standing, severe hypertension complicated by multiple other cardiovascular risk factors such as obesity, sleep apnea, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. The diagnosis of resistant hypertension requires use of good blood pressure technique to confirm persistently elevated blood pressure levels. Pseudoresistance, including lack of blood pressure control secondary to poor medication adherence or white coat hypertension, must be excluded. Resistant hypertension is almost always multifactorial in etiology. Successful treatment requires identification and reversal of lifestyle factors contributing to treatment resistance; diagnosis and appropriate treatment of secondary causes of hypertension; and use of effective multidrug regimens. As a subgroup, patients with resistant hypertension have not been widely studied. Observational assessments have allowed for identification of demographic and lifestyle characteristics associated with resistant hypertension, and the role of secondary causes of hypertension in promoting treatment resistance is well documented; however, identification of broader mechanisms of treatment resistance is lacking. In particular, attempts to elucidate potential genetic causes of resistant hypertension have been limited. Recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of resistant hypertension remain largely empiric due to the lack of systematic assessments of 3 or 4 drug combinations. Studies of resistant hypertension are limited by the high cardiovascular risk of patients within this subgroup, which generally precludes safe withdrawal of medications; the presence of multiple disease processes (eg, sleep apnea, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, atherosclerotic disease) and their associated medical therapies, which confound interpretation of study results; and the difficulty in enrolling large numbers of study participants. Expanding our understanding of the causes of resistant hypertension and thereby potentially allowing for more effective prevention and/or treatment will be essential to improve the long-term clinical management of this disorder.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 15%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 3%
Netherlands 1 3%
Colombia 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Australia 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
India 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Other 9 23%
Unknown 16 41%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 108%
Student > Master 36 92%
Student > Postgraduate 34 87%
Student > Bachelor 34 87%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 82%
Other 85 218%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 177 454%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 44%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 13%
Other 27 69%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,078,110
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#2,624
of 21,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,289
of 96,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#10
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,239 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 96,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.