ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026
β-Blockers after myocardial infarction with preserved or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Fragility of contemporary evidence.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 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.
- Fragility of evidence or fragility of interpretation? Concerns regarding the robustness assessment of β-blockers post-MI in preserved/mildly reduced LVEF.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: β-Blockers have been traditionally prescribed after acute myocardial infarction (MI), but contemporary evidence in patients with preserved or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥40%) have not provided consistent results. We assessed the robustness of the evidence for the efficacy of β-blocker therapy in this population using contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pooled analyses. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Embase through August 1, 2025, for phase 3-4 RCTs evaluating β-blockers in patients with LVEF ≥40% during index MI hospitalization. Primary outcomes included robustness of each trial's primary endpoint; secondary outcomes included all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent MI, heart failure hospitalization, and unplanned revascularization. Fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) were calculated. Data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Four trials (REDUCE-AMI, CAPITAL-RCT, BETAMI-DANBLOCK, REBOOT) with 19,245 patients were included. Event rates were low across the various outcomes with limited robustness: FI and FQ values indicated high sensitivity to small changes in events. BETAMI-DANBLOCK suggested modest benefit for recurrent MI, while REDUCE-AMI and REBOOT showed no significant effect. Pooled analysis revealed a 9% relative risk reduction and 0.9% absolute risk reduction for the composite of death, recurrent MI, or heart failure hospitalization (number needed to treat = 111; FI = 5). Conclusion: In patients with MI and LVEF ≥40%, β-blocker therapy confers only modest absolute benefits, with trial results that are fragile. Routine use in this population may not provide consistent or clinically meaningful benefit, underscoring the need for individualized therapy.
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.