↓ Skip to main content

ISIS-4: A randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58 050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, March 1995
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1748 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
300 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
ISIS-4: A randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58 050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction
Published in
The Lancet, March 1995
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90865-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

ISIS-4 Collaborative Group

Abstract

58,050 patients entering 1086 hospitals up to 24 h (median 8 h) after the onset of suspected acute myocardial infarction (MI) with no clear contraindications to the study treatments (in particular, no cardiogenic shock or persistent severe hypotension) were randomised in a "2 x 2 x 2 factorial" study. The treatment comparisons were: (i) 1 month of oral captopril (6.25 mg initial dose titrated up to 50 mg twice daily) versus matching placebo; (ii) 1 month of oral controlled-release mononitrate (30 mg initial dose titrated up to 60 mg once daily) versus matching placebo; and (iii) 24 h of intravenous magnesium sulphate (8 mmol initial bolus followed by 72 mmol) versus open control. There were no significant "interactions" between the effects of these three treatments, and the results for each are based on the randomised comparison of about 29,000 active versus 29,000 control allocated patients. Captopril There was a significant 7% (SD 3) proportional reduction in 5-week mortality (2088 [7.19%] captopril-allocated deaths vs 2231 [7.69%] placebo; 2p = 0.02), which corresponds to an absolute difference of 4.9 SD 2.2 fewer deaths per 1000 patients treated for 1 month. The absolute benefits appeared to be larger (perhaps about 10 fewer deaths per 1000) in certain higher-risk groups, such as those presenting with a history of previous MI or with heart failure. The survival advantage appeared to be maintained in the longer term (5.4 [SD 2.8] fewer deaths per 1000 at 12 months). Captopril was associated with an increase of 52 (SD 2) patients per 1000 in hypotension considered severe enough to require termination of study treatment, of 5 (SD 2) per 1000 in reported cardiogenic shock, and of 5 (SD 1) per 1000 in some degree of renal dysfunction. It produced no excess of deaths on days 0-1, even among patients with low blood pressure at entry. Mononitrate There was no significant reduction in 5-week mortality, either overall (2129 [7.34%] mononitrate-allocated deaths vs 2190 [7.54%] placebo) or in any subgroup examined (including those receiving short-term non-study intravenous or oral nitrates at entry). Further follow-up did not indicate any later survival advantage. The only significant side-effect of the mononitrate regimen studied was an increase of 15 (SD 2) per 1000 in hypotension. Those allocated active treatment had somewhat fewer deaths on days 0-1, which is reassuring a bout the safety of using nitrates early in acute MI.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
India 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 288 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 46 15%
Other 37 12%
Student > Master 34 11%
Student > Postgraduate 30 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 8%
Other 80 27%
Unknown 48 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 179 60%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 4%
Mathematics 9 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 62 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 May 2021.
All research outputs
#2,297,407
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#13,618
of 42,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#714
of 23,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#9
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 67.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 23,299 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 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 92% of its contemporaries.