↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Hypertension To Use or Not to Use?

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, April 2018
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
261 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
232 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
596 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Hypertension To Use or Not to Use?
Published in
JACC, April 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.01.058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Franz H. Messerli, Sripal Bangalore, Chirag Bavishi, Stefano F. Rimoldi

Abstract

Most guidelines for the management of patients with cardiovascular disease recommend angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors as first-choice therapy, whereas angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are merely considered an alternative for ACE inhibitor-intolerant patients. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes and adverse events between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in patients. In patients with hypertension and hypertension with compelling indications, we found no difference in efficacy between ARBs and ACE inhibitors with regard to the surrogate endpoint of blood pressure and outcomes of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and end-stage renal disease. However, ACE inhibitors remain associated with cough and a very low risk of angioedema and fatalities. Overall withdrawal rates because of adverse events are lower with ARBs than with ACE inhibitors. Given the equal outcome efficacy but fewer adverse events with ARBs, risk-to-benefit analysis in aggregate indicates that at present there is little, if any, reason to use ACE inhibitors for the treatment of hypertension or its compelling indications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 261 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 596 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 596 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 99 17%
Student > Master 66 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 6%
Researcher 35 6%
Other 33 6%
Other 92 15%
Unknown 233 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 148 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 49 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 37 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 3%
Other 56 9%
Unknown 254 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 229. 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 February 2023.
All research outputs
#169,347
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#371
of 16,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,961
of 344,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#12
of 408 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 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,932 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 97% 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 344,748 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 408 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 97% of its contemporaries.