English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Background  Although current guidelines recommend β‐blocker after acute myocardial infarction ( MI ), the role of β‐blocker has not been well investigated in the modern reperfusion era. In particular, the benefit of vasodilating β‐blocker over conventional β‐blocker is still unexplored.    Methods and Results  Using nation‐wide multicenter Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry data, we analyzed clinical outcomes of 7127 patients with acute MI who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention with stents and took β‐blockers: vasodilating β‐blocker (n=3482), and conventional β‐blocker (n=3645). In the whole population, incidence of cardiac death at 1 year was significantly lower in the vasodilating β‐blocker group (vasodilating β‐blockers versus conventional β‐blockers, 1.0% versus 1.9%;  P= 0.003). In 2882 pairs of propensity score–matched population, the incidence of cardiac death was significantly lower in the vasodilating β‐blocker group (1.1% versus 1.8%;  P= 0.028). Although incidences of  MI  (1.1% versus 1.5%;  P= 0.277), any revascularization (2.8% versus 3.0%;  P= 0.791), and hospitalization for heart failure (1.4% versus 1.9%;  P= 0.210) were not different between the 2 groups, incidences of cardiac death or  MI  (2.0% versus 3.1%;  P= 0.010), cardiac death,  MI , or hospitalization for heart failure (3.0% versus 4.5%;  P= 0.003), cardiac death,  MI , or any revascularization (3.9% versus 5.3%;  P= 0.026), and cardiac death,  MI , any revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure (4.8% versus 6.5%;  P= 0.011) were significantly lower in the vasodilating β‐blocker group.    Conclusions  Vasodilating β‐blocker therapy resulted in better clinical outcomes than conventional β‐blocker therapy did in patients with acute MI in the modern reperfusion era. Vasodilating β‐blockers could be recommended preferentially to conventional ones for acute MI patients.

journal of the american heart association

Benefit of Vasodilating β‐Blockers in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Nationwide Multicenter Cohort Study