Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27852588›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2016

Relationship Between β-Blocker Therapy at Discharge and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Chenze Li, Yang Sun, Xiaoqing Shen, Ting Yu, Qing Li, Guoran Ruan, Lina Zhang, Qiang Huang, Hang Zhuang, Jingqiu Huang and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Association ofCardiovascular therapeutics · 2020
    Observational
  8. 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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chenze LiDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Yang SunDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Xiaoqing ShenDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Ting YuDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Qing LiDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Guoran RuanDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Lina ZhangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Qiang HuangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Hang ZhuangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Jingqiu HuangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Li NiDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Luyun WangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Jiangang JiangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Yan WangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China dwwang@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn newswangyan@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn.
Dao Wen WangDivision of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China dwwang@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn newswangyan@tjh.tjmu.edu.cn.
Tongji Hospital · CNHuazhong University of Science and Technology · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe evidence supporting the use of β-blockers in patients with acute coronary syndrome after successful percutaneous coronary intervention has been inconsistent and scarce. METHODS AND

resultsBetween March 1, 2009, and December 30, 2014, a total of 3180 eligible patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were consecutively enrolled. The primary end point was all-cause death and the secondary end point was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, heart failure readmission, and cardiogenic hospitalization. Patients were compared according to the use of β-blockers at discharge. Compared with the no β-blocker group, the risk of all-cause death was significantly lower in the β-blocker group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.65 [P=0.001]). A consistent result was obtained in multiple adjusted model and propensity score-matched analysis. The use of β-blockers was also associated with decreased risk of composite of adverse cardiovascular events (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.81 [P=0.006]), although statistical significance disappeared after multivariable adjustment and propensity score matching. Furthermore, we performed post hoc analysis for the subsets of patients and the results revealed that patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction benefited the most from β-blocker therapy at discharge (HR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.00-0.27 [P=0.001]), and the use of <50% of target dose was significantly associated with better outcome compared with no β-blocker use, rather than ≥50% of target dose.

conclusionsThe administration of relatively low β-blocker dose is associated with improved clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome after successful percutaneous coronary intervention, especially for patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Indexed as

MortalityPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRegistriesAcute Coronary SyndromeAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAftercareAgedAngina, UnstableCause of DeathChinaFemaleHeart FailureHospitalizationHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleAdrenergic beta-Antagonistsacute coronary syndromeclinical outcomesβ‐blocker

Identifiers

PMID27852588
PMCPMC5210364
OpenAlexW2550207714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.