↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Outcomes with Angiotensin-Converting–Enzyme Inhibitors and Diuretics for Hypertension in the Elderly

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, February 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
4 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
974 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
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
A Comparison of Outcomes with Angiotensin-Converting–Enzyme Inhibitors and Diuretics for Hypertension in the Elderly
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, February 2003
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa021716
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindon M.H. Wing, Christopher M. Reid, Philip Ryan, Lawrence J. Beilin, Mark A. Brown, Garry L.R. Jennings, Colin I. Johnston, John J. McNeil, Graham J. Macdonald, John E. Marley, Trefor O. Morgan, Malcolm J. West

Abstract

Treatment of hypertension with diuretics, beta-blockers, or both leads to improved outcomes. It has been postulated that agents that inhibit the renin-angiotensin system confer benefit beyond the reduction of blood pressure alone. We compared the outcomes in older subjects with hypertension who were treated with angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors with the outcomes in those treated with diuretic agents. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label study with blinded assessment of end points in 6083 subjects with hypertension who were 65 to 84 years of age and received health care at 1594 family practices. Subjects were followed for a median of 4.1 years, and the total numbers of cardiovascular events in the two treatment groups were compared with the use of multivariate proportional-hazards models. At base line, the treatment groups were well matched in terms of age, sex, and blood pressure. By the end of the study, blood pressure had decreased to a similar extent in both groups (a decrease of 26/12 mm Hg). There were 695 cardiovascular events or deaths from any cause in the ACE-inhibitor group (56.1 per 1000 patient-years) and 736 cardiovascular events or deaths from any cause in the diuretic group (59.8 per 1000 patient-years; the hazard ratio for a cardiovascular event or death with ACE-inhibitor treatment was 0.89 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.00]; P=0.05). Among male subjects, the hazard ratio was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.97; P=0.02); among female subjects, the hazard ratio was 1.00 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.21; P=0.98); the P value for the interaction between sex and treatment-group assignment was 0.15. The rates of nonfatal cardiovascular events and myocardial infarctions decreased with ACE-inhibitor treatment, whereas a similar number of strokes occurred in each group (although there were more fatal strokes in the ACE-inhibitor group). Initiation of antihypertensive treatment involving ACE inhibitors in older subjects, particularly men, appears to lead to better outcomes than treatment with diuretic agents, despite similar reductions of blood pressure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 134 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Master 10 7%
Other 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 7%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 53 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 59 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 30 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,036,558
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#13,408
of 31,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,336
of 128,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#44
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,177 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 120.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 128,616 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.