This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pfisterer, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pfisterer, M.

Atenolol use and clinical outcomes after thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction: the GUSTO-I experience

Matthias Pfisterer, MD^a, Jafna L. Cox, MD^*, Christopher B. Granger, MD, Sorin J. Brener, MD, C. David Naylor, MD^*, Robert M. Califf, MD, Frans van de Werf, MD, Amanda L. Stebbins, MS, Kerry L. Lee, PhD, Eric J. Topol, MD, Paul W. Armstrong, MD^|| for the GUSTO-I Investigators

^a Division of Cardiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland
^* Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, North York, Ontario, Canada
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
^|| Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Figure 1 Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for 30-day mortality, adjusted for baseline characteristics and excluding deaths within 24 h, for selected patient subgroups who received intravenous and oral atenolol vs. oral atenolol alone. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or pulse 90 at enrollment, with Killip class I. Low-risk was defined as location of infarction other than anterior, Killip class I or II, heart rate 100, age 70 years, no atrial fibrillation and no previous infarction at enrollment (8). "Treated within 2 hours" refers to thrombolytic therapy.