↓ Skip to main content

Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death in hypertensive individuals

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
31 tweeters
peer_reviews
2 peer review sites
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death in hypertensive individuals
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011745.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Garry Taverny, Yanis Mimouni, Anne LeDigarcher, Philippe Chevalier, Lutgarde Thijs, James M Wright, Francois Gueyffier

Abstract

High blood pressure is an important public health problem because of associated risks of stroke and cardiovascular events. Antihypertensive drugs are often used in the belief that lowering blood pressure will prevent cardiac events, including myocardial infarction and sudden death (death of unknown cause within one hour of the onset of acute symptoms or within 24 hours of observation of the patient as alive and symptom free). To assess the effects of antihypertensive pharmacotherapy in preventing sudden death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal myocardial infarction among hypertensive individuals. We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (all years to January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2016, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January 2016), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to January 2016). All randomised trials evaluating any antihypertensive drug treatment for hypertension, defined, when possible, as baseline resting systolic blood pressure of at least 140 mmHg and/or resting diastolic blood pressure of at least 90 mmHg. Comparisons included one or more antihypertensive drugs versus placebo, or versus no treatment. Review authors independently extracted data. Outcomes assessed were sudden death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and change in blood pressure. We included 15 trials (39,908 participants) that evaluated antihypertensive pharmacotherapy for a mean duration of follow-up of 4.2 years. This review provides moderate-quality evidence to show that antihypertensive drugs do not reduce sudden death (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.15) but do reduce both non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74, 0.98; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.3% over 4.2 years) and fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90; ARR 0.3% over 4.2 years). Withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased in the drug treatment group to 12.8%, as compared with 6.2% in the no treatment group. Although antihypertensive drugs reduce the incidence of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, they do not appear to reduce the incidence of sudden death. This suggests that sudden cardiac death may not be caused primarily by acute myocardial infarction. Continued research is needed to determine the causes of sudden cardiac death.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 13 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 08 May 2020.
All research outputs
#804,922
of 16,884,169 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,137
of 11,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,467
of 269,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,884,169 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 269,734 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 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 72% of its contemporaries.