↓ Skip to main content

New advances in beta-blocker therapy in heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
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
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
New advances in beta-blocker therapy in heart failure
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00323
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincenzo Barrese, Maurizio Taglialatela

Abstract

The use of β-blockers (BB) in heart failure (HF) has been considered a contradiction for many years. Considering HF simply as a state of inadequate systolic function, BB were contraindicated because of their negative effects on myocardial contractility. Nevertheless, evidence collected in the past years have suggested that additional mechanisms, such as compensatory neuro-humoral hyperactivation or inflammation, could participate in the pathogenesis of this complex disease. Indeed, chronic activation of the sympathetic nervous system, although initially compensating the reduced cardiac output from the failing heart, increases myocardial oxygen demand, ischemia and oxidative stress; moreover, high catecholamine levels induce peripheral vasoconstriction and increase both cardiac pre- and after-load, thus determining additional stress to the cardiac muscle (1). As a consequence of such a different view of the pathogenic mechanisms of HF, the efficacy of BB in the treatment of HF has been investigated in numerous clinical trials. Results from these trials highlighted BB as valid therapeutic tools in HF, providing rational basis for their inclusion in many HF treatment guidelines. However, controversy still exists about their use, in particular with regards to the selection of specific molecules, since BB differ in terms of adrenergic β-receptors selectivity, adjunctive effects on α-receptors, and effects on reactive oxygen species and inflammatory cytokines production. Further concerns about the heterogeneity in the response to BB, as well as the use in specific patients, are matter of debate among clinicians. In this review, we will recapitulate the pharmacological properties and the classification of BB, and the alteration of the adrenergic system occurring during HF that provide a rationale for their use; we will also focus on the possible molecular mechanisms, such as genetic polymorphisms, underlying the different efficacy of molecules belonging to this class.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 98 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 24%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 26 26%
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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,354,532
of 22,731,677 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#8,074
of 13,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,076
of 280,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#227
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,731,677 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 280,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 398 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.