↓ Skip to main content

What Is New in Heart Failure Management in 2017? Update on ACC/AHA Heart Failure Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
What Is New in Heart Failure Management in 2017? Update on ACC/AHA Heart Failure Guidelines
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11886-018-0978-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Biykem Bozkurt

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to provide a summary of the new recommendations in the most recent 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. The intent is to provide the background and the supporting evidence for the recommendations and to provide practical guidance for management strategies in treatment of heart failure patients. In the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of HF guidelines, important additions include new information on biomarkers, specifically on the topics of the diagnostic, prognostic role of natriuretic peptides in heart failure, and the role of natriuretic peptides in screening in patients high risk for HF and prevention of HF. There are important recommendations for treatment of patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), including the beneficial role of angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibition (ARNI) treatment in reducing outcomes including mortality, ivabradine in reducing heart failure hospitalizations in stable HFrEF patients with sinus rhythm and heart rate ≥ 70 bpm despite β-blockers. In patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), though there are no studies demonstrating survival benefit, potential benefit with aldosterone antagonism in reducing HF hospitalizations is noted. In treatment of comorbidities, optimization of blood pressure control to less than 130 mmHg is recommended in hypertensive patients to prevent HF or in patients with hypertension and HFrEF or HFpEF. In addition to recognition on the potential role of treatment of iron deficiency anemia to improve symptoms and functional capacity, caution against use of adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFrEF and central sleep apnea and against use of erythropoietin stimulating agents in patients with HFrEF is provided. There are new treatment strategies that are associated with significant improvements in mortality and other outcomes in patients with HF. Successful management of HF requires recognition of indications, contraindications, benefits, safety, and risk of these new therapies. In addition to incorporation of these new treatment strategies, it is critical to focus also on patient education, care coordination, identification of goals of care, monitoring, management of comorbidities, and individualization of therapies. New treatment modalities increase the choices for treatment and provide the opportunity to implement individualized treatment strategies for our patients.

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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Master 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 35 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 39 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 04 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,505,836
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#616
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,495
of 327,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#15
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 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 1,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 327,033 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.