↓ Skip to main content

Beta-Blockers and Ivabradine in Chronic Heart Failure: From Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Beta-Blockers and Ivabradine in Chronic Heart Failure: From Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice
Published in
American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, December 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40256-013-0057-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonino Di Franco, Filippo M. Sarullo, Ylenia Salerno, Stefano Figliozzi, Rossella Parrinello, Pietro Di Pasquale, Gaetano A. Lanza

Abstract

Beta-blockers have become one of the cornerstones of treatment of patients with heart failure (HF) and depressed left ventricular function, but in clinical practice only 30-35% of patients achieve the therapeutic target dose as established in randomized clinical trials. Moreover, high resting heart rate (HR) has emerged as a simple but relevant risk factor for cardiovascular events, including coronary artery disease and HF; also, it was found to have an independent prognostic value in patients with HF. Evidence that HR could be considered a good parameter to evaluate the quality of treatment in patients with HF has been suggested; of note, many patients maintain a resting HR ≥70 beats per minute despite optimal beta-blocker therapy. In recent years, a new drug able to reduce HR, ivabradine, has been introduced in clinical practice, and its use in the clinical setting of HF patients has been recommended by current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. Here we review the evidence of the prognostic role of HR in systolic HF and the potential relationship between HR lowering and the beneficial effects of beta-blockers; we will also analyze the reasons why an appropriate use of these drugs is seldom achieved in clinical practice, and review the evidence for the use of ivabradine in systolic HF in the clinical setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Master 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 14 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 December 2013.
All research outputs
#15,288,160
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs
#308
of 425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,366
of 307,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 425 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 307,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.