ArticleClinical cardiology2016
Antianginal medications and long-term outcomes after elective catheterization in patients with coronary artery disease.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.The New England journal of medicine · 2023Trial
- Article
- Optimal medical therapy is vital for patients with coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes regardless of revascularization strategy.Annals of translational medicine · 2017Article
- Antianginal medications and long-term outcomes after elective catheterization in patients with coronary artery disease.Clinical cardiology · 2016Article
- Clinical and functional outcome of fractional flow reserve guided management of triple vessel coronary artery disease.Indian heart journalObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntianginal medications are a class I recommendation by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for stable ischemic heart disease. We sought to better understand guidance in drug selection and real-life outcomes of antianginal medication use. HYPOTHESIS: In patients with stable ischemic heart disease, antianginal medications lower mortality.
methodsWe evaluated 5608 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) on elective cardiac catheterization with follow-up through self-administered questionnaires. Patients were classified as being prescribed a particular medication if they received that medication at index catheterization, or within 3 months postcatheterization. The association between antianginal medication use and outcomes was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsCompared with the 11% not prescribed any antianginal medication, patients prescribed antianginal medication were more likely to be older and female; have a history of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, or 3-vessel CAD; have lower adjusted mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-0.89); and experience mortality or myocardial infarction (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71-0.98). Compared with patients not taking β-blockers (17%), those taking β-blockers had a lower risk of mortality (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.88). Patients prescribed calcium channel blockers or long-acting nitrates had a higher risk of mortality compared with nonusers (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.29; HR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.08-1.34; respectively).
conclusionsAntianginal medications are not universally prescribed among obstructive CAD patients; nonuse was associated with higher mortality. For CAD patients with or without prior myocardial infarction, β-blockers were associated with improved long-term survival.
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.