Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10713909›Full record

ReviewHerz2000

Current concepts in secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction.

R H Mehta, E Bossone, K A Eagle

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Herz, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

R H MehtaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA. rmehta@groupwise.med.umich.edu
E Bossone
K A Eagle

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Acute myocardial infarction (MI) is the leading cause of death around the globe. Advances in the field of cardiology have identified several effective treatments that have lead to decrease in mortality from this cause over the past 3 decades. The purpose of this article is to review the existing literature in regards to secondary prevention after acute MI. A search of MEDLINE through August of 1999 was carried out to identify any available publications on secondary prevention after MI. Evidence on the use of both pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions that was shown to be effective in improving morbidity and mortality was sought. Recommendations for the treatment of patients with acute MI are made based on existing evidence. Betablockers, aspirin and lipid-lowering agents for patients with low density lipoprotein-cholesterol > 130 mg% should be used for all patients following a MI. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors are indicated for patients with congestive heart failure and/or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and are likely protective in most patients. Calcium channel blockers (Verapamil and Diltiazem) are indicated as second-line therapy for patients who have contraindications or are intolerant to betablockers. The routine prophylactic use of antiarrhythmic drugs to suppress ventricular ectopic beats should be avoided. Recommendations regarding diet, smoking cessation and achievement of ideal body weight should be an integral part of patient management. Referral for outpatient rehabilitation should also be strongly encouraged. Finally, adequate control of blood pressure and diabetes cannot be overemphasized. Adherence to these goals in patients with acute MI will lead to better long-term outcomes and reduction in cardiac death, recurrent MI, stroke, and need for coronary revascularization.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular AgentsHumansLife StyleMyocardial InfarctionRecurrenceRisk FactorsSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeCardiovascular Agents

Identifiers

PMID10713909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.