Benefit Of Beta-blockers Research Articles

Routine beta-blocker therapy after acute coronary syndromes: The end of an era?

Beta-blocker therapy, a treatment burdened by side effects including fatigue, erectile dysfunction and depression, was shown to reduce mortality and cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the pre-coronary reperfusion era. Potential mechanisms include protection from ventricular arrhythmias, increased ischaemia threshold and prevention of left ventricular (LV) adverse remodelling. With the advent of early mechanical reperfusion and contemporary pharmacologic secondary prevention, the benefit of beta-blockers after ACS in the absence of LV dysfunction has been challenged. The present narrative review discusses the contemporary evidence based on searching the PubMed database and references in identified articles. Recently, the REDUCE-AMI trial-the first adequately powered randomized trial in the reperfusion era to test beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)-showed no benefit on the composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction over a median 3.5-year follow-up. While the benefit of beta-blockers in patients with reduced LVEF remains undisputed, their value in post-ACS patients with mildly reduced systolic function (LVEF 41%-49%) has not been studied in contemporary randomized trials; in this setting, observational studies have suggested a reduction in cardiovascular events with these agents. The adequate duration of beta-blocker therapy remains unknown, but observational data suggests that any mortality benefit may be lost beyond 1-12 months after ACS in patients with LVEF >40%. We believe that there is sufficient evidence to abandon routine beta-blocker prescription in post-ACS patients with preserved LV systolic function.

Beta Blockers are Associated with Increased Mortality Without a Decrease in Reinterventions After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Repair (EVAR)

ObjectivePredictors of sac behavior after EVAR and the impact of sac behavior on long-term survival are not well known. There are limited multicenter trials studying the impact of beta-blockers (BB) on sac behavior. Beta-blockers have consistently failed to show a benefit on AAA sac regression in patients with connective tissue disorders and the general population. This study aims to assess the association between BBs and sac behavior after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). MethodsPatients undergoing EVAR registered in Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) (2003-2021) stratified by BB and no BB on discharged after an index procedure were assessed at follow-up of 30-days and 1-year. The primary outcomes included mortality and reintervention at 30-days and 1-year. The causes of reintervention were also studied at the defined time endpoints. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed separately for association between the two groups. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. ResultsA total of 50,411 patients, stratified by BB (28,866; 57.3%), and No BB (21,545; 42.7%) were studied. Patients with hypertension, diabetes, COPD, coronary artery disease, prior history of coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention, prior angioplasty or stent, lower extremity bypass, carotid surgery, major amputation, and smokers were more likely to be on a BB at the time of discharge (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in reinterventions when comparing patients with and without BB (p=0.061). At 30-day follow up, there was no significant difference between the two groups for any cause of reintervention. At 1-year follow up, patients on BB were less likely to need reintervention for graft occlusion (no BB 18.70%, BB 11.77%, p=0.002). There was no significant difference in reintervention for all other causes at 1-year follow up. There was an increase in 30-day (no BB 0.20%, BB 0.33%, p=0.007) and 1-year mortality (no BB 2.35%, BB 3.19%, p<0.001) in patients on beta-blockers. A time to event adjusted analysis based on Cox proportional hazard model revealed a 26% higher risk of 1-year mortality for patients on BB (HR:1.26 [1.10-1.41] p<0.001) ConclusionDespite theoretical benefits of beta-blockers on aneurysm behavior, review of the largest national vascular surgery database shows that patients on beta-blockers do not have lower incidence of endovascular reinterventions after EVAR while additionally showing a higher mortality in this patient population.

The prescription of beta-blockers in older patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: an observational study in Vietnam

This study in older hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) aimed to examine the prevalence of beta-blocker prescription and its associated factors. A total of 190 participants were recruited from July 2019 to July 2020. The inclusion criteria included: (1) aged ≥ 60 years, (2) having a diagnosis of chronic HFrEF in the medical records, (3) hospitalized for at least 48 h. The participants had a mean age of 75.5 ± 9.1, and 46.8% were female. Of these, 55.3% were prescribed beta-blockers during admission. To explore the factors associated with beta-blocker prescription, multivariable logistic regression analysis was applied and the results were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). On multivariate logistic regression models, higher NYHA classes (OR 0.49, 95%CI 0.26–0.94), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04–0.85), chronic kidney disease (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19–0.83), and heart rate under 65 (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12–0.98) were associated with a reduced likelihood of prescription. In this study, we found a low rate of beta-blocker prescriptions, with only around half of the participants being prescribed beta-blockers. Further studies are needed to examine the reasons for the under-prescription of beta-blockers, and to evaluate the long-term benefits of beta-blockers in elderly patients with HFrEF in this population.

The effect of sustained-release CARvedilol in patients with hypErtension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial (CARE-preserved HF).

Although beta-blockers improve clinical outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, the benefit of beta-blockers in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) is a robust predictor of heart failure outcomes, and recent studies have shown that beta-blockers are associated with improved survival in those with low GLS (GLS <14%) but not in those with GLS ≥14% among patients with LVEF ≥40%. Therefore, the objective of this trial is to evaluate the effect of sustained-release carvedilol (carvedilol-SR) on the outcome [N-terminal pro-B-natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration] in patients with hypertension and HFpEF and will assess the differential effects of these drugs on the outcome, according to the GLS categories. This prospective randomized double-blind multicenter trial (CARE-preserved HF) will include 100 patients with HFpEF from three tertiary hospitals in South Korea. Patients with HFpEF and hypertension aged ≥20 years who have evidence of functional and structural heart disease on echocardiography and elevated natriuretic peptide will be enrolled. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to either the carvedilol-SR group (n = 50) or the placebo group (n = 50). Patients in the carvedilol-SR group will receive 8, 16, 32, or 64 mg carvedilol-SR once daily for 6 months, and the dose of carvedilol will be up-titrated at the discretion of the treating physicians. The primary efficacy outcome was the time-averaged proportional change in N-terminal pro-B-natriuretic peptide concentration from baseline to months 3 and 6. We will also evaluate the differential effects of carvedilol-SR on primary outcomes according to GLS, using a cut-off of 14% or the median value. This randomized controlled trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of carvedilol-SR in patients with HFpEF and hypertension. ClinicalTrial.gov, identifier NCT05553314.

Abstract 16565: Machine Learning Model for Predicting Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Managed With or Without Beta-Blocker

Introduction: Optimal personalized medical therapy is crucial for reducing the mortality risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). But, assessing the potential individual benefits of beta-blockers (BB) remains challenging despite the consensus of current guidelines. Hypothesis: The hypothesis is that machine learning (ML) models can predict the mortality benefit of BB for individual AMI patients, thus helping to identify subgroups with the highest clinical benefit. Methods: A total 13,104 AMI patients registered in the Korea AMI registry (KAMIR)-National Institutes of Health (NIH) were included in the study. After exclusion of in-hospital death (N = 505), datasets were randomly allocated to the training (N = 8467) and test datasets (N = 4132) by 2:1 ratio. Binary GLM Logistic Regression, Subspace Discriminant, Kernel Naive Bayes, Boosted Trees and KNN were used to train the ML model. Patients were stratified into quartiles (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4) based on the estimated risk.The low-risk group comprised Q1 and Q2, while the high-risk group consisted of Q3 and Q4. Results: Binary GLM Logistic Regression outperformed other models in the 5-fold cross validation test (area under the curve = 0.85, sensitivity = 98.6%). Errors of estimated mortality were within 0.3% for all quartile groups. High-risk group identified by the ML model demonstrated significant reduction in mortality with the usage of BB, whereas no such benefit was observed in the low-risk group. Additionally, subgroups of chronic kidney disease (CKD), anemia, and old age (&gt;65) displayed notable reduction in mortality when managed with BB, in the high-risk group. Conclusions: With the successful performance of ML model predicting mortality, we identified subpopulations within AMI patients who are highly likely to benefit from the usage of BB. Clinical decision-making could be potentially optimized for individual AMI patients by application of the ML model, through personalized risk scoring and identification.

Propranolol or Beta-Blockers for Cerebral Cavernous Malformation: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Literature in Both Preclinical and Clinical Studies.

Cerebral cavernous malformation (CCM), either sporadic or familial, is a devastating vascular malformation affecting the central nervous system that can present with intracerebral hemorrhage, seizure, and new focal neurologic deficits resulting in substantial morbidity and mortality. To date, there is no effective evidence-based preventive regimen. There have been several preclinical and clinical studies investigating the potential mechanisms and benefits of beta-blockers, especially on propranolol. We aimed to conduct a systematic review on the published literature investigating the use of beta-blockers in the treatment of CCM, including both preclinical and clinical studies between 2008 and 2023 using public databases. A total of 2 preclinical studies and 6 clinical studies met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included. Data was extracted and synthesized from 5 clinical studies for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis failed to demonstrate a statistically significant protective effect of beta-blockers in preventing intracerebral hemorrhage or developing focal neurologic deficits in subjects with CCM (overall effect = 0.78 (0.20, 3.11), p = 0.73). Overall, there was a paucity of high quality clinical trials, partially due to limited cases of CCM. Addressing this gap may require collaborative efforts at a national or international level. In this review, we summarized all barriers and opportunities on this topic. Additionally, we proposed establishing an evidence-based approach on the use of beta-blockers in preventing recurrent hemorrhage and focal neurological deficits in patients with CCM.

Association of Beta-Blocker Therapy With Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

BackgroundPrevious studies have failed to show a cardioprotective benefit of beta-blockers in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the association between beta-blockers and cardiovascular events in patients with stable CAD using a new user design. MethodsAll patients aged >66 years undergoing elective coronary angiography in Ontario, Canada, from 2009 to 2019 with diagnosed obstructive CAD were included. Exclusion criteria included heart failure or a recent myocardial infarction, as well as having a beta-blocker prescription claim in the previous year. Beta-blocker use was defined as having at least 1 beta-blocker prescription claim in the 90 days preceding or after the index coronary angiography. The main outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure or myocardial infarction. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score was used to account for confounding. ResultsThis study included 28,039 patients (mean age: 73.0 ± 5.6 years; 66.2% male), and 12,695 of those (45.3%) were newly prescribed beta-blockers. The 5-year risks of the primary outcome were 14.3% in the beta-blocker group and 16.1% in the no beta-blocker group (absolute risk reduction: −1.8%; 95% CI: −2.8 to −0.8; HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86-0.98; P = 0.006). This result was driven by reductions in myocardial infarction hospitalization (cause-specific HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.031), whereas no differences were observed in all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization. ConclusionsIn patients with angiographically documented stable CAD without heart failure or a recent myocardial infarction, beta-blockers were associated with a small but significant reduction in cardiovascular events at 5 years.

Blocked At The Door: Benefits Of Beta Blockers In Cardiogenic Shock

Blocked At The Door: Benefits Of Beta Blockers In Cardiogenic Shock

Quantifying the benefit of non-selective beta-blockers in the prevention of hepatic decompensation: a Bayesian re-analysis of the PREDESCI trial.

Beta-blockers have been studied for the prevention of variceal bleeding and, more recently, for the prevention of all cause decompensation. Some uncertainties regarding the benefit of beta-blockers for the prevention of decompensation remain. Bayesian analyses enhance the interpretation of trials. The purpose of this study was to provide clinically meaningful estimates of both the probability and magnitude of benefit with beta-blocker treatment across a range of patient types. We undertook a Bayesian re-analysis of PREDESCI incorporating three priors (moderate neutral, moderate optimistic, and weak pessimistic). The probability of clinical benefit was assessed considering the prevention of all cause decompensation. Microsimulation analyses were done to determine the magnitude of benefit. In the Bayesian analysis the probability that beta-blockers reduce all cause decompensation was >0.93 for all priors. The Bayesian posterior hazard ratios (HR) for decompensation ranged from 0.50 (optimistic prior, 95% credible interval 0.27-0.93) to 0.70 (neutral prior, 95% credible interval 0.44-1.12). Exploring the benefit of treatment using microsimulation highlights substantial treatment benefit. For the neutral prior derived posterior HR and a 5% annual incidence of decompensation, at 10 years an average of 497 decompensation-free years per 1000 patients were gained with treatment. In contrast, at 10 years 1639 years per 1000 patients were gained from the optimistic prior derived posterior HR and a 10% incidence of decompensation. Beta-blocker treatment is associated with a high probability of clinical benefit. This likely translates to a substantial gain in decompensation-free life years at the population level.

Beta-blocker prescription and outcomes in uncomplicated acute myocardial infarction: Insight from the ePARIS registry

BackgroundSystematic prescription of beta-blockers after myocardial infarction remains an open question in the era of revascularization, especially for patients with uncomplicated myocardial infarction. ObjectiveTo evaluate in a real-life registry the proportion of patients with uncomplicated myocardial infarction (preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and no cardiovascular event within the first 6 months), and to report their characteristics, outcomes and beta-blocker use. MethodsWe included 1887 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction from the prospective ePARIS registry. Patients were divided into three groups: the “uncomplicated myocardial infarction” group (n=1060), defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40% and a 6-month period free from cardiovascular events; the “complicated myocardial infarction” group (n=366), defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 40% and a recurrent cardiovascular event in the first 6 months; and the “left ventricular dysfunction” group (n=461), defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction<40%. ResultsDuring a median follow-up of 2.7 years (interquartile range 1.0–4.9 years), the “uncomplicated myocardial infarction” group was at low mortality risk compared with the “complicated myocardial infarction” group (hazard ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.25–0.58; P<0.01) and the “left ventricular dysfunction” group (hazard ratio 0.22, 95% confidence interval 0.15–0.32; P<0.01). Beta-blockers were prescribed at discharge predominantly in the “uncomplicated myocardial infarction” group (93%) compared with 87% in the “complicated myocardial infarction” group and 81% in the “left ventricular dysfunction” group. ConclusionsBeta-blockers are less prescribed in patients who may need them the most. The benefit of beta-blockers–largely prescribed in lower-risk patients–remains to be shown beyond the first 6 months for these patients with no left ventricular dysfunction and no recurrent events.

Beta-blockers after myocardial infarction with preserved systolic function: useful or redundant?

Given the lack of adequately sized randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing the value of maintenance beta-blockers for post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and treated according to current standards, several observational studies have tried to address this highly relevant issue. However, results from observational studies have yielded opposite conclusions, with some suggesting that beta-blockers are associated with clinical benefit and others suggesting that they have no benefit. Due to the observational nature of these studies, the risk of bias is very high. In particular the existence of a confounding by indication factor is present when the prescription of the therapy is not random and is instead based on patients' clinical characteristics. Some randomness is needed to ensure that individuals with identical characteristics can be observed in both states (with or without beta-blockers). The only chance, therefore, to solve the question of benefits of beta-blockers is the execution of adequately sized RCTs. Currently, four large RCTs are ongoing in Europe, and, among them, the REBOOT-CNIC trial is already beyond three quarters of the expected cohort to be enrolled (6000/8648 revascularized MI patients without left ventricular dysfunction). An Italian cohort (1800 patients) will be included, enrolled by the Italian REBOOT Network. Enrollment is expected to be complete by the end of 2022, and the first results will become available by the end of 2025.

Abstract 10169: Do Beta-Blockers Confer Cardiovascular Protection in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease in the Contemporary Era?

Introduction: Previous studies have failed to show a cardioprotective benefit of beta-blockers in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). These studies, however, were frequently limited by either small or heterogenous populations. We aimed to determine the association between beta-blocker therapy and long-term cardiovascular events in patients with angiographically-documented stable CAD. Methods: We identified all patients ≥ 66 years undergoing elective coronary angiography in Ontario, Canada from 2009 to 2019, who had significant coronary stenoses. Patients with heart failure or recent myocardial infarction (MI) were excluded. We used a new user design by defining beta-blocker use as ≥1 prescription claims in the 90 days preceding or after coronary angiography and excluded those with beta-blocker use in the previous year. The main outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure or MI. Propensity score and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to deal with confounding. Results: We included 28,039 patients (mean age: 73.0 ± 5.6y; 66.2% male), 12,695 (45.3%) were treated with beta-blockers. The 5-year rate of the primary outcome in the weighted cohort was 14.3% in the beta-blocker group and 16.1% in the no beta-blocker group (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.98; p=0.006), which was primarily driven by reductions in MI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.99; p=0.031). No significant difference was observed regarding all-cause death (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.02) and hospitalization for heart failure (HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.06). Findings were consistent across subgroups, including sex, age, diabetes, and previous revascularization (p-interaction &gt; 0.1; Figure). Conclusions: In patients with angiographically-documented stable CAD without heart failure or a recent MI, beta-blockers were associated with a significant reduction in the composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure or MI.

Clinical impact of beta-blockers at discharge on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with non-reduced ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction

BackgroundBeta-blockers are associated with several clinical benefits in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (REF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), such as lower rates of mortality, recurrence of myocardial infarction, and heart failure. However, the long-term prognosis of beta-blockers has rarely been investigated in patients with non-REF after AMI. This study aimed to investigate the clinical benefits of beta-blockers in these patients. MethodsA total of 3281 consecutive patients who were hospitalized within 48 h after AMI were registered in the J-MINUET study. Patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and had a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40 % were enrolled, and patients who died during admission were excluded. Included patients were divided into two groups according to the prescription of beta-blockers at discharge. Their characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared. ResultsThe number of AMI patients treated with beta-blockers was 1353 (70.4 %). Patients who received beta-blockers were younger and had a higher incidence of hypertension, dyslipidemia, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction than those who did not receive beta-blockers. The peak creatine kinase level after primary PCI was significantly higher in patients who received beta-blockers. These patients also had a lower incidence of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared to those that did not receive beta-blockers (7.3 % vs. 11.9 %, p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that beta-blocker use was an independent factor for better clinical outcomes. ConclusionsThe J-MINUET study revealed the clinical benefit of beta-blockers in AMI patients with non-REF after primary PCI.

The Efficacy of Various Pharmacological Agents on Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

The beneficial impacts of various drugs on long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have been a matter of controversy. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically review randomized control trials (RCTs) involving patients with heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and identify the effects of various treatment options [angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone receptor blockers] on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular reasons. The current meta-analysis has been conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed without any restrictions on language by using the electronic databases Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and PubMed up to July 20, 2022. The outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization due to cardiovascular reasons. Overall, 10 articles were included in the current meta-analysis with a pooled sample size of 13,336 patients with HFpEF. In comparison to the placebo, among all four pharmacological agents, beta-blockers were the only agent that decreased the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes. On the other hand, a significant reduction in hospitalization due to cardiac-related reasons was reported in patients on ACE inhibitors as compared to placebo. No other pharmacological agent had an impact on hospitalization due to cardiac-related reasons. The current meta-analysis indicates the possible benefits of beta-blockers in HFpEF in terms of reducing cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality.

Survival analysis of a large Belgian heart failure cohort with reduced ejection fraction

The therapeutic management of heart failure has evolved over the past 20 years. Indeed, before 1997, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) were mainly treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi). After 1997, several clinical trials demonstrated the benefit of beta-blockers and from 2012, the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) were recommended by AHA guidelines. We prupose to evaluate and analyze clinical characteristics, treatment evolution and long-term outcomes in a large cohort of HFrEF ≤ 35%. Three time periods based on changes in clinical practice according to HF guidelines were defined. Between 1994 and 2020, 2512 patients were included at St-Luc University Hospital at the time of diagnosis of HFrEF and prospectively followed for a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality at 5 years. Patients were classified and compared according to the time of enrolment (group 1: before 1997, group 2: 1997–2012, group 3: 2013–2020). All-cause mortality was analysed using univariate Cox regression analysis. Of the 2512 patients, 67 patients were included in group 1, 1805 in group 2 and 640 in group 3. Patients in groups 2 and 3 were significantly older, had more comorbidities such as hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than patients in group 1 ( Table 1 ). Over time, the prevalence of ischemic heart disease decreased and the use of beta-blockers and MRAs increased. A total of 925 (37%) patients died after five years. After adjustment for age and ischaemic etiology, 5-year all-cause mortality was lower in group 2 (HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.58, P ≤ 0.001) and group 3 (HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.61, P ≤ 0.001) compared to group 1 ( Fig. 1 ). In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a significant improvement in survival was observed over the last 20 years, clearly related to better therapeutic management.

New Perspectives in the Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

ABSTRACT Acute and chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a major public health problem, studies showing a 25% survival rate at 5 years after hospitalization. If left untreated, it is a common and potentially fatal disease. In recent years, the medical and device therapies of patients with HFrEF have significantly improved. The aim of our review is to provide an evidence-based update on new therapeutic strategies in acute and chronic settings, to prevent hospitalization and death in patients with HFrEF. We performed a systematic literature search on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, and we included a number of 23 randomized controlled trials published in the last 30 years. The benefit of beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors in patients with HFrEF is well known. Recent developments, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, vericiguat, transcatheter mitral valve repair, wireless pulmonary artery pressure monitor and cardiac contractility modulation, have also proven effective in improving prognosis. In addition, other new therapeutic agents showed encouraging results, but they are currently being studied. The implementation of personalized disease management programs that directly target the cause of HFrEF is crucial in order to improve prognosis and quality of life for these patients.

Impact of rate control in hospitalized patients with atrial fibrillation and sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a common complication in patients with sepsis, and imposes a worse prognosis and challenging clinical management. Administration of antiarrhythmics is often needed, to achieve rate or rhythm control, especially in the occurrence of AF with rapid ventricular response; however, it is unclear whether different classes of antiarrhythmics are associated with better outcomes in patients with sepsis and AF. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA Guidelines. Pubmed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies reporting outcomes in patients with sepsis and AF, according to the use of Beta-blockers (BBs), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), digoxin and amiodarone. Random-effect models were used to provide pooled estimates; fixed-effect models were also performed as a sensitivity analysis. Results Among 4,166 studies, 2 articles were included from the literature search, and an additional 1 from the author’s knowledge, yielding a total of 40,593 patients with sepsis and AF included. According to the data available from the included studies, the meta-analysis was performed only for in-hospital mortality. BBs were associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality compared to amiodarone (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.46-0.58; I2 = 0%, Figure 1, Panel C), while no significant differences were observed for BBs. vs. CCBs (Figure 1, Panel A) and for BBs vs. digoxin (Figure 1, Panel B). In the pre-specified sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effect model, BBs resulted associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality compared with both CCBs and digoxin). Conclusion In patients with AF during sepsis, BBs were associated with reduced risk of in-hospital mortality, compared to amiodarone; inconclusive results emerged for the comparisons between BBs and CCBs or digoxin, although with a benefit of BBs observed in the fixed-effect models. Further studies are needed to provide definitive data and to guide physicians in the choice of the best rate control strategy in this clinical setting. Abstract Figure.

Beta-blockers provide a differential survival benefit in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing contemporary post-percutaneous coronary intervention management

Beta-adrenergic receptor blockers are used in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) to reduce the harmful effects of excessive adrenergic activation on the heart. However, there is limited evidence regarding the benefit of beta-blockers in the context of contemporary management following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We used the nationwide South Korea National Health Insurance database to identify 87,980 patients with a diagnosis of either acute myocardial infarction (AMI; n = 38,246) or angina pectoris (n = 49,734) who underwent PCI between 2013 and 2017, and survived to be discharged from hospital. Beta-blockers were used in a higher proportion of patients with AMI (80.6%) than those with angina (58.9%). Over a median follow-up of 2.2 years (interquartile range 1.2–3.3 years) with the propensity-score matching analysis, the mortality risk was significantly lower in patients treated with a beta-blocker in the AMI group (HR: 0.78; 95% CI 0.69–0.87; p < 0.001). However, the mortality risk was comparable regardless of beta-blocker use (HR: 1.07; 95% CI 0.98–1.16; p = 0.10) in the angina group. The survival benefit associated with beta-blocker therapy was most significant in the first year after the AMI event.

The Potential Benefit of Beta-Blockers for the Management of COVID-19 Protocol Therapy-Induced QT Prolongation: A Literature Review

The World Health Organization (WHO) officially announced coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a pandemic in March 2020. Unfortunately, there are still no approved drugs for either the treatment or the prevention of COVID-19. Many studies have focused on repurposing established antimalarial therapies, especially those that showed prior efficacy against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV), such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, against COVID-19 combined with azithromycin. These classes of drugs potentially induce prolongation of the QT interval, which might lead to lethal arrhythmia. Beta-blockers, as a β-adrenergic receptor (β-AR) antagonist, can prevent an increase in the sympathetic tone, which is the most important arrhythmia trigger. In this literature review, we aimed to find the effect of administering azithromycin, chloroquine, and hydroxychloroquine on cardiac rhythm disorders and our findings show that bisoprolol, as a cardio-selective beta-blocker, is effective for the management of the QT (i.e., the start of the Q wave to the end of the T wave) interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients.

Optimal Medical Therapy Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Limited data exist on optimal medical therapy post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for late cardiovascular events prevention. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of beta-blocker (BB), renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi), and their combination on outcomes following successful TAVI. In a consecutive cohort of 1,684 patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI, the status of BB and RASi treatment at discharge was collected, and patients were classified into 4 groups: no-treatment, BB alone, RASi alone, and combination groups. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for heart failure (HHF) at 2-year. There were 415 (25%), 462 (27%), 349 (21%), and 458 (27%) patients in no-treatment, BB alone, RASi alone, and combination groups, respectively. The primary outcome was lower in RASi alone (21%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]adj: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42 to 0.81) and combination (22%; HRadj: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.72) groups than in no-treatment group (34%) but no significant difference between RASi alone and combination groups (HRadj: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.62). The primary outcome results were maintained in a sensitivity analysis of patients with reduced left ventricular systolic function. Furthermore, RASi treatment was an independent predictor of 2-year all-cause mortality (HRadj: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.90), while that was not observed in BB therapy (HRadj: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.25). In conclusion, post-TAVI treatment with RASi, but not with BB, was associated with lower all-cause mortality and HHF at 2-year. The combination of RASi and BB did not add an incremental reduction in the primary outcome over RASi alone.