Recently, researchers have found that resting heart rate in patients with acute coronary syndromes after intervention is strongly associated with the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiogenic death and recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction at one year. After intervention, resting heart rate in patients with acute coronary syndromes is strongly associated with the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiogenic death and recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction at one year. In particular, patients with a resting heart rate greater than or equal to 61 bpm (beats per minute) had a 38% increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at one year for every 10 beats per minute increase in heart rate. The study was recently published in the journal Experimental Biology and Medicine. Resting heart rate is defined as the heart rate in the awake, quiet state, according to the study. Increased resting heart rate has been found to be associated with the risk of cardiovascular disease in the general population, in patients with stable coronary artery disease (combined or uncomplicated hypertension), and with cardiac and all-cause mortality in the general healthy population, in the elderly, and in patients with coronary artery disease. However, the relationship between resting heart rate and the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes after intervention, is uncertain. This study was a multicenter, regional group randomized controlled clinical study that enrolled 805 patients with acute coronary syndrome after intervention. The researchers routinely intervened in patients according to relevant guidelines and followed up at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after inclusion to record basic clinical information and the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events such as cardiogenic death. The final study results showed that patients with a resting heart rate greater than 76 bpm had 2.29 times the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at one year compared to patients with a resting heart rate of 61 bpm to 76 bpm. These findings suggest that controlling resting heart rate may be an effective measure to prevent serious cardiovascular events in patients after interventional therapy. For the majority of patients, the ideal heart rate should be maintained between 61 bpm and 76 bpm, and non-pharmacological methods of heart rate control should be preferred, including reducing the intake of coffee and strong tea, ensuring adequate sleep, appropriate exercise, and maintaining a pleasant mood. In addition, a small number of patients can be treated with drugs such as betalactam, bisoprolol and diltiazem under the guidance of a doctor.