ArticleCardiovascular drugs and therapy2026
Differential Outcomes of Beta-Blockers According to Heart Rate Following Myocardial Infarction with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.
Article in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Re: Differential Outcomes of Beta-Blockers According to Heart Rate Following Myocardial Infarction with Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWhile clinical benefits of beta-blockers are well-established in patients with acute myocardial infarction and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (< 40%) (AMI-rEF), but their efficacy in patients with low heart rates (H-Rs) remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the association between beta-blockers and 3-year mortality outcomes according to H-R in this population.
methodsWe analyzed 2,941 patients with AMI-rEF from two nationwide Korean registries, stratified by discharge H-R (< 75 or ≥ 75 beats per minute). The primary outcome was 3-year all-cause death. Propensity score matching and multivariable Cox models adjusted for baseline differences.
resultsOn unadjusted analysis, beta-blocker use was associated with lower all-cause death (16.1% vs. 23.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-0.76) and cardiac death (9.8% vs. 15.2%; HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.75). However, after adjustment, these associations were attenuated. Beta-blockers were associated with a significantly increased risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.14-4.59), particularly in patients with discharge H-R ≥ 75 bpm (HR, 3.34; 95% CI, 1.13-9.92).
conclusionIn patients with AMI-rEF, beta-blockers were not independently associated with significantly reduced all-cause death after adjustment, though a trend was observed. Notably, beta-blocker use increased the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction, particularly at higher H-R. These findings suggest that the benefits of beta-blockers in this population may not be uniform and highlight the potential importance of H-R as a clinical marker to guide individualized beta-blocker use in the contemporary post-AMI setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41099960What 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.