Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33961118›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2021

Should We Be Using Upstream Beta-Blocker Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction?

Georgios Giannakopoulos, Stephane Noble

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Georgios GiannakopoulosCardiology Division, Department of Medicine, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. georgios.giannakopoulos@hcuge.ch.
Stephane NobleCardiology Division, Department of Medicine, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8018-2857
University Hospital of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewControversy exists whether beta-blockers should be given before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or to defer their administration for up to 24 hours. RECENT

findingsAnimal studies, most of them conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, showed evidence that early beta-blocker administration may reduce infarct size. Subsequent human studies had mixed results on infarct size and survival. More specifically, in the current primary PCI era, only four studies evaluated the impact of early intravenous beta-blocker administration after acute myocardial infarction, only two of them before PCI. All studies agree that in hemodynamically stable patients, early intravenous beta-blocker administration is safe and protected against malignant arrhythmias. Nevertheless, results on infarct size and mortality are equivocal. Considering the heterogeneity of currently available data, further studies are still needed to assess the benefit of early injection of metoprolol in STEMI patients in a large double-blinded and randomized design versus placebo.

Indexed as

Myocardial InfarctionPercutaneous Coronary InterventionST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsHumansMetoprololTreatment OutcomeAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsMetoprololAcute myocardial infarctionBeta-blockerCardiogenic shock

Identifiers

PMID33961118
PMCPMC8105203
OpenAlexW3157428566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.