The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of prophylactic antiarrhythmic drug therapy in acute myocardial infarction. An overview of results from randomized controlled trials
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of prophylactic therapy with antiarrhythmic agents on mortality in patients with myocardial infarction. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Data were obtained from all completed, published or unpublished, randomized, parallel controlled trials of antiarrhythmic agents, regardless of sample size. Investigators were contacted for data on patients excluded after randomization. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on mortality were extracted by one author and confirmed where necessary by the others. DATA SYNTHESIS: Mortality data from 138 trials on 98,000 patients were combined by the Yusuf-Peto adaptation of the Mantel-Haenszel method. There were 660 deaths among 11,712 patients allocated to receive class I agents and 571 deaths among 11,517 corresponding control patients (51 trials: odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.28; P = .03). Of 26,973 patients allocated to receive beta-blockers (class II agents), 1464 died compared with 1727 deaths among 26,295 control patients (55 trials: OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.87; P = .00001). Of 778 patients allocated to receive amiodarone (a class III agent), 77 died compared with 101 deaths in 779 control patients (eight trials: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.97; P = .03). There were 982 deaths in 10,154 patients allocated to receive a class IV agent (calcium channel blockers) and 949 deaths in 10,188 control patients (24 trials: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.14; P = .41). CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of class I antiarrhythmic agents after myocardial infarction is associated with increased mortality. beta-Blockers have been conclusively demonstrated to reduce mortality. The limited data on amiodarone appear promising. Data on calcium channel blockers remain unpromising.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials
Yusuf, S., Peto, R., Lewis, J., Collins, R., & Sleight, P. (1985) · Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/s0033-0620(85)80003-7 · Cited by 3,205
Cited by
Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006 · Cited by 2,184
Waldo, A. L., Camm, A. J., deRuyter, H., Friedman, P. L., MacNeil, D. J., Pauls, J. F., Pitt, B., Pratt, C. M., Schwartz, P. J., & Veltri, E. P. (1996) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)02149-6 · Cited by 1,371
Julian, D., Camm, A., Frangin, G., Janse, M., Munoz, A., Schwartz, P., & Simon, P. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)09145-3 · Cited by 1,112
Bigger, J. T. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199711273372201 · Cited by 1,020
Cairns, J. A., Connolly, S. J., Roberts, R., & Gent, M. (1997) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(96)08171-8 · Cited by 957
Metadata
- Authors
- Teo, K. K.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association
- Published
- 1993-10-06
- Volume
- 270
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 1589-1595
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4243836195
- Cited by
- 608
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 18.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of prophylactic antiarrhythmic drug therapy in acute myocardial infarction. An overview of results from randomized controlled trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.270.13.1589
- The paper
- Teo, K. K. (1993). Effects of prophylactic antiarrhythmic drug therapy in acute myocardial infarction. An overview of results from randomized controlled trials. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.270.13.1589
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.