↓ Skip to main content

Nurse-led titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-adrenergic blocking agents, and angiotensin receptor blockers for people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 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
Nurse-led titration of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, beta-adrenergic blocking agents, and angiotensin receptor blockers for people with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009889.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Driscoll, Judy Currey, Andrew Tonkin, Henry Krum

Abstract

Heart failure is associated with high mortality and hospital readmissions. Beta-adrenergic blocking agents, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) can improve survival and reduce hospital readmissions and are recommended as first-line therapy in the treatment of heart failure. Evidence has also shown that there is a dose-dependent relationship of these medications with patient outcomes. Despite this evidence, primary care physicians are reluctant to up-titrate these medications. New strategies aimed at facilitating this up-titration are warranted. Nurse-led titration (NLT) is one such strategy. To assess the effects of NLT of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and ARBs in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in terms of safety and patient outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL Issue 11 of 12, 19/12/2014), MEDLINE OVID (1946 to November week 3 2014), and EMBASE Classic and EMBASE OVID (1947 to 2014 week 50). We also searched reference lists of relevant primary studies, systematic reviews, clinical trial registries, and unpublished theses sources. We used no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NLT of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and/or ARBs comparing the optimisation of these medications by a nurse to optimisation by another health professional in patients with HFrEF. Two review authors (AD & JC) independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias. We contacted primary authors if we required additional information. We examined quality of evidence using the GRADE rating tool for RCTs. We analysed extracted data by risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous data to measure effect sizes of intervention group compared with usual-care group. Meta-analyses used the fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel method. We assessed heterogeneity between studies by Chi(2) and I(2). We included seven studies (1684 participants) in the review. One study enrolled participants from a residential care facility, and the other six studies from primary care and outpatient clinics. All-cause hospital admission data was available in four studies (556 participants). Participants in the NLT group experienced a lower rate of all-cause hospital admissions (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88, high-quality evidence) and fewer hospital admissions related to heart failure (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, moderate-quality evidence) compared to the usual-care group. Six studies (902 participants) examined all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality was also lower in the NLT group (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.92, moderate-quality evidence) compared to usual care. Approximately 27 deaths could be avoided for every 1000 people receiving NLT of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and ARBs. Only three studies (370 participants) reported outcomes on all-cause and heart failure-related event-free survival. Participants in the NLT group were more likely to remain event free compared to participants in the usual-care group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77, moderate-quality evidence). Five studies (966 participants) reported on the number of participants reaching target dose of beta-adrenergic blocking agents. This was also higher in the NLT group compared to usual care (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.47, low-quality evidence). However, there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity in this pooled analysis. We rated the risk of bias in these studies as high mainly due to a lack of clarity regarding incomplete outcome data, lack of reporting on adverse events associated with the intervention, and the inability to blind participants and personnel. Participants in the NLT group reached maximal dose of beta-adrenergic blocking agents in half the time compared with participants in usual care. Two studies reported on adverse events; one of these studies stated there were no adverse events, and the other study found one adverse event but did not specify the type or severity of the adverse event. Participants in the NLT group experienced fewer hospital admissions for any cause and an increase in survival and number of participants reaching target dose within a shorter time period. However, the quality of evidence regarding the proportion of participants reaching target dose was low and should be interpreted with caution. We found high-quality evidence supporting NLT as one strategy that may improve the optimisation of beta-adrenergic blocking agents resulting in a reduction in hospital admissions. Despite evidence of a dose-dependent relationship of beta-adrenergic blocking agents, ACEIs, and ARBs with improving outcomes in patients with HFrEF, the translation of this evidence into clinical practice is poor. NLT is one strategy that facilitates the implementation of this evidence into practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 1000%
Student > Master 17 850%
Researcher 15 750%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 650%
Other 12 600%
Other 42 2100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 2250%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 1500%
Unspecified 12 600%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 400%
Psychology 7 350%
Other 17 850%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,799,127
of 12,276,356 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,636
of 8,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,820
of 332,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#106
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,276,356 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. 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 332,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.