↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Outcomes of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering in Older Hypertensive Patients

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, February 2017
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 (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Outcomes of Intensive Blood Pressure Lowering in Older Hypertensive Patients
Published in
JACC, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.077
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chirag Bavishi, Sripal Bangalore, Franz H. Messerli

Abstract

The 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee panel recommended a therapeutic target of systolic blood pressure (BP) <150 mm Hg in patients ≥60 years of age, a departure from prior recommendation of <140 mm Hg. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of intensive BP-lowering strategies in older (age ≥65 years) hypertensive patients. The MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials from 1965 through July 1, 2016. Cardiovascular (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE], cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure), and safety (serious adverse events and renal failure) were evaluated. Random and fixed effects analysis were used to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We identified 4 high-quality trials involving 10,857 older hypertensive patients with a mean follow-up of 3.1 years. Intensive BP lowering was associated with a 29% reduction in MACE (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.84), 33% in cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.98), and 37% in heart failure (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.99) compared with standard BP lowering. Rates of myocardial infarction and stroke did not differ between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference in the incidence of serious adverse events (RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09) or renal failure (RR: 1.81; 95% CI: 0.86 to 3.80) between the 2 groups. The fixed effects model yielded largely similar results, except for an increase in the risk of renal failure (RR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.30 to 3.18) with intensive BP-lowering therapy. In older hypertensive patients, intensive BP control (systolic BP <140 mm Hg) decreased MACE, including cardiovascular mortality and heart failure. Data on adverse events were limited, but suggested an increased risk of renal failure. When considering intensive BP control, clinicians should carefully weigh benefits against potential risks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 100 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 120 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Master 11 9%
Researcher 9 7%
Other 29 24%
Unknown 30 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 36 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 91. 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 06 September 2023.
All research outputs
#475,768
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#1,181
of 16,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,303
of 427,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#47
of 325 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 427,064 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 325 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.