Key result
Paroxetine was not associated with a clinically significant improvement in the risk of post-myocardial infarction heart failure compared to non-paroxetine SSRIs (aHR 1.0, 95% CI 0.8-1.3).
Why the study?
Animal studies suggest paroxetine may attenuate post-myocardial infarction heart failure, but its clinical effectiveness compared with non-paroxetine SSRIs on mortality and heart failure was unclear.
Does paroxetine prevent incident heart failure and improve mortality in patients with recent myocardial infarction compared to non-paroxetine SSRIs?
Cohort (n=13,053)
Yes
Does paroxetine prevent incident heart failure and improve mortality in patients with recent myocardial infarction compared to non-paroxetine SSRIs?
In a nationwide cohort of patients hospitalized with myocardial infarction, prior treatment with paroxetine did not improve the risk of post-MI incident heart failure or death compared to other SSRIs, failing to confirm the clinical benefit suggested by its theoretical antioxidant properties in preclinical models.
Observational data do not support preferring paroxetine post-MI; leaves open whether preclinical antioxidant effects warrant randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Animal studies suggest that paroxetine, unlike other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), may attenuate post-myocardial infarction (MI) heart failure. We examine the effectiveness of paroxetine versus non-paroxetine SSRIs on the risk of post-MI mortality and heart failure in a clinical setting. METHOD: We conducted a nationwide population-based cohort study based on Danish medical registries. Using an active comparator design, we compared the effectiveness of paroxetine with non-paroxetine SSRI drugs on post-MI outcomes. This included all patients hospitalized for MI in Denmark during 1995-2020 who had redeemed an SSRI prescription within 90 days prior to admission and measured outcome variables after a 180-day follow-up period. We calculated cumulative incidences as a measure of risk and used Cox regression to compute hazard ratios (HRs) for all outcomes, adjusting for sex, age group, individual comorbidities, and comedications. RESULTS: We identified 13 053 patients receiving treatment with an SSRI at the time of hospital admission for MI. Cumulative incidences were lower for paroxetine SSRI users compared with non-paroxetine SSRI users for all-cause mortality (24.7% versus 33.8% (difference: -9.1% [95% CI: -12.4; -5.8])) and cardiovascular death (15.9% versus 22.7% (-6.8% [95% CI: -9.6; -4.0])), but not for heart failure (11.0% versus 11.8% (-0.7% [95% CI: -3.13; 1.65])). Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) showed no substantial differences for all-cause mortality (aHR 0.9 [95% CI: 0.8-1.1]), cardiovascular death (aHR 0.9 [95% CI: 0.8-1.1]), or heart failure (aHR 1.0 [95% CI: 0.8-1.3]). CONCLUSION: Paroxetine was not associated with clinically significant improvement in post-MI outcomes compared with non-paroxetine SSRI drugs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lassen et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Myocardial Infarction (n=13,053). Paroxetine vs. Non-paroxetine SSRIs was evaluated on Incident heart failure at 180 days (aHR 1.0, 95% CI 0.8-1.3). Paroxetine was not associated with a clinically significant improvement in the risk of post-myocardial infarction heart failure compared to non-paroxetine SSRIs (aHR 1.0, 95% CI 0.8-1.3).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: