Key result
Beta-blocker therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite endpoint of all-cause death or non-fatal AMI compared to no beta-blocker in patients with acute myocardial infarction and preserved ejection fraction, with all-cause mortality at 3.9% versus 4.1%.
Why the study?
For a patient with an acute MI and preserved ejection fraction, is there a benefit to prescribing a beta blocker?
RCT (n=5,020)
open-label
randomized
For a patient with an acute MI and preserved ejection fraction, is there a benefit to prescribing a beta blocker?
Long-term beta-blocker use after acute myocardial infarction with preserved ejection fraction does not significantly improve clinical outcomes, suggesting that blanket-policy quality markers incentivizing their prescription should be re-examined.
May support avoiding routine beta-blockers post-MI with preserved EF; leaves open need for individualized application in practice.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thayer et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Acute myocardial infarction with preserved ejection fraction (n=5,020). Beta-blocker vs. No beta-blocker was evaluated on Composite of all-cause death or non-fatal acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blocker therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite endpoint of all-cause death or non-fatal AMI compared to no beta-blocker in patients with acute myocardial infarction and preserved ejection fraction, with all-cause mortality at 3.9% versus 4.1%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: