Key result
Long-term anticoagulant therapy after recovery from acute myocardial infarction yielded essentially negative results compared to no anticoagulant therapy over 1 to 3 years of follow-up.
RCT (n=328)
Randomly divided
No
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No support for routine long-term anticoagulation after MI recovery; challenges historical practice and narrows secondary prevention options.
To the Editor.— The place of anti-coagulant therapy for a prolonged period after recovery from acute myocardial infarction is still controversial. A randomized clinical trial of this treatment conducted at the Bronx Municipal Hospital Center,while essentially negative, studied 243 men and 85 women who had recovered from acute myocardial infarction; they were followed up for one to three years. All except 20 patients had participated in the study of anticoagulant therapy for acute myocardial infarction previously reported (222:541, 1972). Those treated with anticoagulants during the period of hospitalization after acute myocardial infarction were randomly divided at the time of discharge into three groups: (1) continuous therapy with anticoagulants for the duration of the study; (2) anticoagulant treatment for one year, then abrupt termination for the remainder of the study; and (3) control, no anticoagulant therapy. An unrandomized group (group 4) (54 men, 13 women), not treated with anticoagulants in
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
C. Merskey (1974) conducted an RCT in Acute myocardial infarction (n=328). Anticoagulant therapy vs. No anticoagulant therapy was evaluated. Long-term anticoagulant therapy after recovery from acute myocardial infarction yielded essentially negative results compared to no anticoagulant therapy over 1 to 3 years of follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: