↓ Skip to main content

Heart failure in the elderly: ten peculiar management considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Heart Failure Reviews, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Heart failure in the elderly: ten peculiar management considerations
Published in
Heart Failure Reviews, February 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10741-017-9598-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Feras Bader, Bassam Atallah, Lisa F Brennan, Rola H Rimawi, Mohammed E Khalil

Abstract

Chronic heart failure (HF) is a disease with significantly higher prevalence in the elderly or patients older than 65 years old. Typically, older patients have more risk factors for HF, more comorbidities, and are more likely to have recurrent admissions for acute decompensations. With HF burden on health care systems primarily related to hospital and nursing home costs, it is critical that elderly patients are approached with a clear understanding of certain unique clinical, laboratory, imaging, and pharmacokinetic differences that can alter their management and outcomes. Psychosocial factors have major implications on adherence to therapy as well as decisions on advanced care for elderly HF patients. In this article, we highlight ten peculiar management considerations when approaching older patients with HF. We discuss issues related to epidemiology, diagnostic challenges, pharmacotherapy, and palliative care; all of which can impact this unique population and, more importantly, the disease burden as a whole.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Master 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 36 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 34 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,045,457
of 22,952,268 outputs
Outputs from Heart Failure Reviews
#392
of 668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,171
of 420,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart Failure Reviews
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,952,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 420,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.