ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020
Effectiveness of beta blockers in patients with and without a history of myocardial infarction.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary interventions in patients with end-stage liver disease.World journal of cardiology · 2021Review
- Calcium and Heart Failure: How Did We Get Here and Where Are We Going?International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeStudies demonstrating mortality benefit of beta blockers (BB) after myocardial infarction (MI) were conducted before the era of percutaneous intervention and widespread use of statins. Recent retrospective studies show inconsistent results regarding which subgroups of coronary artery disease (CAD) patients' benefit. Most studies did not account for medication changes over time. We evaluated the association of time-varying BB exposure with death in CAD patients with or without a history of MI.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included all patients with MI and those with coronary disease but no MI at a single health care system who also had health insurance from January 1, 1997, to June 30, 2011. Pharmacy claims data were used to estimate BB exposure over 6-month rolling windows. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The effect of BB exposure was tested using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models.
resultsWe identified 6220 patients with MI and 21,285 patients with CAD but no MI. Among patients who suffered MI, BB exposure was associated with a 31% relative risk reduction in all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69, P = 0.001). Among subjects who survived 3 years after MI, BB retained a protective association (HR 0.71, P = 0.001). Among CAD-only patients, BB exposure was also associated with risk reduction (HR 0.85, P = 0.001).
conclusionAmong patients with CAD, BB exposure is associated with reduced risk of death. The association is strongest among those who have suffered MI. This favorable association appears durable beyond 3 years.
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.