ReviewCardiovascular research2025
Blood pressure management in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction.
Review in Cardiovascular research, 2025. 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.
- Challenges and Perspectives in Optimising the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension: Role of the Ramipril-Amlodipine-Hydrochlorothiazide Single-Pill Combination.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2026Review
- Complete revascularization improves blood pressure control and clinical prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction by reducing oxidative stress.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The management of blood pressure (BP) in secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains a matter of debate. Since no dedicated trials have specifically addressed BP control in patients recovering from an acute coronary syndrome, there are no evidence-based, prospective data to define precise BP targets in this population. Moreover, major international guidelines devote surprisingly little attention to BP management in the post-AMI setting, despite its recognized importance in reducing recurrent cardiovascular events. On one hand, BP-lowering may improve cardiac function by reducing afterload and myocardial oxygen consumption and by facilitating favourable ventricular remodelling. On the other hand, the concept of a J-shaped association-whereby excessive lowering of diastolic blood pressure may paradoxically increase cardiovascular risk, particularly in the early post-AMI period-remains a matter of ongoing uncertainty. Despite decades of investigation, this issue has not been definitively resolved and continues to raise debate within both the scientific community and among clinicians. In this review, we examine the current evidence supporting BP control in the context of secondary prevention following AMI, with an updated focus on the ongoing debate surrounding the potential implications of the J-shaped phenomenon.
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.