ArticleClinical cardiology2011
Differential effect of β-blockers for heart rate control in coronary artery disease.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Metoprolol Succinate in Patients with Stable Angina and Elevated Heart Rate Receiving Low-Dose β-Blocker Therapy.International journal of medical sciences · 2017Trial
- The Long-Term Prognostic Role of Nighttime Resting Heart Rate in Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome.Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis · 2024Article
- Drug Therapy for Stable Angina Pectoris.Drugs · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResting heart rate is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is mainly controlled by β-blockers (BBs). BBs are part of the optimal medical treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD), and their benefit correlates with resting heart rate (RHR) reduction. HYPOTHESIS: RHR is poorly controlled in daily practice among patients with stable cardiovascular disease, and control is only achieved by some BBs.
methodsObservational, cross-sectional, and multicenter study of CAD patients recruited nationwide from 20 institutions. Antecedents, risk factors, and treatments were collected. Controlled RHR was considered at <70 bpm.
resultsThe mean age of the 2897 patients included was 67.4 years (11.4%), and 75.9% were males. Patients treated with a BB (56.5%) had a lower mean age and comorbidities. The mean RHR was 69.6 bpm (12.6). A significantly lower RHR was observed in patients treated with a BB compared to the rest (67.2 vs 73.0 bpm; P<0.01), and no difference was observed in patients treated with a calciumchannel blocker (CCB). The analysis by individual agents identified that only patients treated with atenolol, bisoprolol, and metoprolol had significantly lower RHR than those not receiving a BB. No differences were observed in mean doses of each agent according to RHR control, except for verapamil. BB treatment was independently associated with RHR control (odds ratio [OR]: 2.42, 95% CI: 2.05-2.87; P<0.01), and no association was found for nondihydropyridine CCBs (OR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.96-1.02; P = 0.38). Bisoprolol (OR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.38-1.78; P<0.01), atenolol (OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.57-3.49; P<0.01), and metoprolol (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.04-1618; P = 0.04) were independently associated with RHR control.
conclusionsRHR is poorly controlled in CAD patients, and although BBs are the most efficient therapy, in daily clinical practice RHR <70 bpm is only independently associated with atenolol, bisoprolol, or metoprolol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.