CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-07). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 3 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2403 · Search date 2026-08-07 · Methodology v0.7

Propranolol,
does it really help with Reduction in long-term all-cause mortality?

30-Second Summary
B
Evidence Grade B · 76 · Safety caution
BHAT reduced mortality, but the same-drug Baber trial was not a positive replication
Hypotension, gastrointestinal problems, fatigue, bronchospasm, and cold extremities were more frequent in BHAT. Bradycardia, hypotension, bronchospasm, asthma, and conduction disease require prescribing supervision; arm-level discontinuation counts were not confirmed.
What the
research shows
The grade is B. In the 3,837-participant NHLBI BHAT, mortality was 7.2% with propranolol versus 9.8% with placebo. The Norwegian trial used timolol, a different drug, and the Baber propranolol trial was not a positive replication.
What the
ads claim
Do not treat other beta blockers as replication of propranolol itself.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The first-author field was the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group.
  • BHAT was NHLBI-sponsored.
  • Baber funding, absolute death counts, and absolute harm counts could not be verified.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2403 · B 76
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

BHAT randomized 3,837 patients at 31 US centers and began treatment 5-21 days after infarction. The original report gave mortality rates of 7.2% versus 9.8%; approximately 138/1,916 versus 188/1,921 are calculated values, not source-reported absolute counts. The one avoidable defect was termination nine months early. The Norwegian trial used timolol 10 mg twice daily, a different drug, and was not propranolol replication. Baber randomized 720 patients to propranolol or placebo but did not show its targeted 50% mortality reduction. Baber funding, absolute death counts, and absolute harm counts could not be verified and were not estimated.

02

Why this is classified as B (76)

A decisive public hard-outcome trial with early termination and no positive same-drug replication gives B with 76 points.

Counterpoint. Incremental benefit on modern therapy is a separate question.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Large public mortality trial, null Baber replication, different-drug Norwegian trial, and early termination

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointHHard endpoint - actual events such as death
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (B).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced post-MI all-cause mortalityBBHAT found 7.2% versus 9.8%.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group. 1982 BHATMulticenter double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial1,921National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsoredPrimary total mortality7.2% versus 9.8%, 26% reduction; mean follow-up about 25 monthsDecisive publicly funded hard-outcome evidence
§

Receipt — 3 References

All 3 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-07).

Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1982;247(12):1707-1714. PMID: 7038157. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1982.03320370021023.
checked
Baber NS, Evans DW, Howitt G, et al. Multicentre post-infarction trial of propranolol in 49 hospitals. Br Heart J. 1980;44(1):96-100. PMID: 7000100. DOI: 10.1136/hrt.44.1.96.
checked
Norwegian Multicenter Study Group. Timolol-induced reduction in mortality and reinfarction in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1981;304(14):801-807. PMID: 7010157. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198104023041401.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-07 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Propranolol x reduced all-cause mortality after myocardial infarction Evidence Grade B card
[Chamgap] Propranolol x reduced all-cause mortality after myocardial infarction — Evidence Grade B·76. 3 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/heart/propranolol-post-myocardial-infarction-all-cause-mortality/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.