Safety Of Beta-blockers Research Articles

Beta-blocker use and outcomes in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction

Abstract Background Concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of use and safety of beta-blockers (BBs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, randomized trial evidence is still lacking. Purpose To perform an observational analysis of the association between BB use and clinical outcomes in a large dataset of patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF. Methods We pooled individual patient data from four large HFmrEF/HFpEF trials (I-Preserve, TOPCAT, PARAGON-HF, and DELIVER). The associations between baseline BB use and outcomes were analyzed. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Results Among the 16,951 patients included, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 56.8%, and 13,400 (79.1%) had HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%). Overall, 12,812 patients (75.6%) received a BB. The median bisoprolol-equivalent dose of BB was 5.0 (Q1-Q3: 2.5-5.0) mg with BB continuation rates of 95.1% at 1 year and 93.1% at 2 years (in patients who survived more than 1 and 2 years, respectively). Overall, the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not differ between BB users and non-users (HR: 0.98 [95% CI: 0.91-1.05]) but among patients with HFmrEF, BB users had a lower HR (0.84 [95% CI 0.71-0.98]), whereas in HFpEF the HR was similar BB users and non-users (0.99 [95% CI 0.92-1.08]). However, after comprehensive adjustment for known prognostic variables, including NT-proBNP, BB use was associated with a better outcome in the overall cohort (HR 0.81 [0.74-0.88]), and this association was maintained across the range of LVEF (Figure 1). In subgroup analyses, the risk of the primary outcome was similar in BB users and non-users with or without a history of myocardial infarction, with or without a history of hypertension, or with or without a baseline heart rate <70 bpm. By contrast, a better outcome with BB use was seen in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without atrial fibrillation (Figure 2). Conclusions Although this is an observational analysis of non-randomized treatment, there was no suggestion that BB use was associated with worse HF outcomes even after extensive adjustment for other prognostic variables. Figure Legends Figure 1. Association between beta-blocker use and outcomes across the range of LVEF. Risk in beta-blocker users versus non-users is shown as an adjusted continuous hazard ratio Figure 2. Association between beta-blocker use and non-use in the overall population and clinically relevant patient subgroups, shown as an adjusted hazard ratio (HR). The outcome analyzed was the composite of CV death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome)Figure 1Figure 2

Efficacy of Beta-Blockers and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Non-Ischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) is a form of heart failure with a poor prognosis and unclear optimal management. The aim of the study was to systematically review the literature and assess the efficacy and safety of beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in the management of chronic heart failure secondary to NIDCM and explore their putative mechanisms of action. Studies from 1990 to 2023 were reviewed using PubMed and EMBASE, focusing on their effects on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in NIDCM patients, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Beta-blockers showed a significant beneficial effect on LVEF improvement in NIDCM, with an overall effect size of Cohen's d = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.76, 1.84), high heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.90; Chi2 = 162.05, df = 13, P < 0.00001; I2 = 92%), and a significant overall effect (Z = 4.72, P < 0.00001). ACE inhibitors also showed a beneficial role, but with less heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.02; Chi2 = 1.09, df = 1, P = 0.30; I2 = 8%) and a nonsignificant overall effect (Z = 1.36, P = 0.17), 95% CI (-0.24, 1.31). The study highlights the efficacy of carvedilol in improving LVEF in NIDCM patients over ACE inhibitors, recommends beta-blockers as first-line therapy, and advocates further research on ACE inhibitors.

Beta-blockers in chronic heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: is deprescribing possible?

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a complex clinical syndrome characterized by poor prognosis. According to the Russian epidemiological study EPOHA-CHF, more than half of patients with CHF have preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF). However, no class of drugs has proven effectiveness in improving the prognosis of this disease. Although current clinical guidelines do not recommend the routine use of beta-blockers in CHF patients with preserved LV EF in the absence of other indications for them, many patients with CHF with preserved LV EF take these drugs unreasonably. The review presents the data from studies on the efficacy and safety of betablockers in CHF with preserved LV EF and it withdrawal. Most studies included patient with LV EF &gt;40%, a few of them analyzed only patients with LVEF ≥50%. Some studies of real clinical practice and meta-analysis of such studies demonstrated a positive effect of beta blockers in patients with LV EF &gt; 40%, however randomized clinical trials and their meta-analyses revealed either a slight beneficial effect of beta-blockers. Studies involving only patients with LV EF ≥50% didn’t show the beneficial effects of beta blockers. There is only one trial accessing the withdrawal of beta blockers in patients with CHF with preserved LV EF and chronotropic insufficiency. The study showed a positive effect of deprescribing on exercise tolerance and quality of life. Due to controversial data, well-designed trials to examine the effect of beta-blockers on symptoms and prognosis in patients with CHF with LVEF ≥50% are required. Deprescribing of beta-blockers also require further assessment.

Safety of beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker antihypertensive drugs in pregnancy: a Mendelian randomization study

BackgroundBeta-blocker (BB) and calcium channel blocker (CCB) antihypertensive drugs are commonly used in pregnancy. However, data on their relative impact on maternal and foetal outcomes are limited. We leveraged genetic variants mimicking BB and CCB antihypertensive drugs to investigate their effects on risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes and birthweight using the Mendelian randomization paradigm.MethodsGenetic association estimates for systolic blood pressure (SBP) were extracted from summary data of a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on 757,601 participants. Uncorrelated single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with SBP (p < 5 × 10−8) in BB and CCB drug target gene regions were selected as proxies for drug target perturbation. Genetic association estimates for the outcomes were extracted from GWASs on 4743 cases and 136,325 controls (women without a hypertensive disorder in pregnancy) for pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, 7676 cases and 130,424 controls (women without any pregnancy-related morbidity) for gestational diabetes, and 155,202 women (who have given birth at least once) for birthweight of the first child. All studies were in European ancestry populations. Mendelian randomization estimates were generated using the two-sample inverse-variance weighted model.ResultsAlthough not reaching the conventional threshold for statistical significance, genetically-proxied BB was associated with reduced risk of pre-eclampsia (OR per 10 mmHg SBP reduction 0.27, 95%CI 0.06–1.19, p = 0.08) and increased risk of gestational diabetes (OR per 10 mmHg SBP reduction 2.01, 95%CI 0.91–4.42, p = 0.08), and significantly associated with lower birthweight of first child (beta per 10 mmHg SBP reduction − 0.27, 95%CI − 0.39 to − 0.15, p = 1.90 × 10−5). Genetically-proxied CCB was associated with reduced risk of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.43–0.89, p = 9.33 × 10−3), and was not associated with gestational diabetes (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.76–1.45, p = 0.76) or changes in birthweight of first child (beta per 10 mmHg SBP reduction 0.02, 95%CI − 0.04–0.07, p = 0.54).ConclusionsWhile BB and CCB antihypertensive drugs may both be efficacious for lowering blood pressure in pregnancy, this genetic evidence suggests that BB use may lower birthweight. Conversely, CCB use may reduce risk of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia without impacting gestational diabetes risk or birthweight. These data support further study on the effects of BBs on birthweight.

Assessment of Effect and Safety of Beta Blockers in Hypertensive Patients

Background: To assess effect and safety of beta blockers in hypertensive patients.Material &amp; Methods:One hundred twelve adult patients who were diagnosed cases of hypertension of either gender were divided into 2 groups. Each group contained 56 patients. Group I received 25 mg atenolol twice daily and group II received 25 mg metoprolol tartrate twice daily. History of diabetes, kidney disease, lipid disorder, incident cardiovascular (CV) events etc. was recorded. Blood pressure (systolic and diastolic) was recorded before starting and after starting the drug therapy.Results:Age group 20-40 years had 12 in group I and 11 in group II, 41-60 years had 14 in group I and 17 in group II and &gt;60 years had 30 in group I and 28 in group II. There were 40 males and 16 females in group I and 38 males and 18 females in group II. A significant difference in males and females within the group (P&lt; 0.05) and non- significant intergroup difference was observed (P&gt; 0.05). The mean SBP found to be 149.4 mm Hg in group I and 146.7 mm Hg in group II and DBP was 85.4 mm Hg in group I and 83.6 mm Hg in group II at baseline and SBP was 135.4 mm Hg in group I and 134.6 mm Hg in group II and 78.2 mm Hg in group I and 78.0 mm Hg in group II at 6 months. Diabetes mellitus was seen in 12 in group I and 19 in group II, lipid disorders 17 in group I and 28 in group II, chronic kidney disease 11 in group I and 16 in group II and CV event 2 in group I and 4 in group II. Conclusions:Both beta blockers found to be equally effective in management of patients with hypertension.

Место бета-блокаторов в лечении артериальной гипертензии в 2017 году: так ли все плохо?

Эта статья является обзором данных литературы об эффективности и безопасности применения бета-адреноблокаторов в лечении артериальной гипертензии (АГ). Рассматриваются вопросы влияния препаратов данной группы на частоту развития кардиоваскулярных событий, центральное артериальное давление и жесткость артерий, углеводный и липидный метаболизм, поражение органов-мишеней и на качество жизни пациентов с АГ. Делаются выводы, что частота большинства побочных эффектов бета-адреноблокаторов невысока в клинических исследованиях и сильно преувеличивается практическими врачами. У пациентов с АГ и наличием показаний лечение данными препаратами оказывается более полезным, чем их неназначение, в том числе у больных с сахарным диабетом, метаболическим синдромом, обструктивными заболеваниями легких, лиц пожилого возраста. При существующем высоком риске возникновения побочных явлений преимущество имеют бета-адреноблокаторы с вазодилатирующими свойствами. Особый акцент делается на положительных свойствах карведилола.

Comparative efficacy and safety of preserved versus preservative-free beta-blockers in patients with glaucoma or ocular hypertension: a systematic review.

Preservative-free topical medications have been introduced for glaucoma care to reduce ocular adverse events associated with preservatives. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of beta-blockers, or combination using beta-blockers, with and without preservatives. PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were examined. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. The primary outcome was change in intraocular pressure (IOP) from baseline to final follow-up. Secondary outcomes included ocular and systemic side effects, and other clinical and quality of life outcomes. Of 242 records identified, seven RCTs (1125 patients) were included. The follow-up period ranged from one to 12 months. Timolol was used in five studies, and two studies used a combination (timolol with bimatoprost or dorzolamide). The difference in mean change (MD) in IOP between the preservative-free and the preserved drugs was statistically significant but not clinically relevant: (MD 0.29 mmHg, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.51 mmHg, p = 0.010; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding adverse events: Level of evidence for all ocular surface outcome was low or very low and reported in few studies. No significant difference was observed on ocular surface symptoms. Tear break-up time (TBUT) was better with preservative-free drops (p < 0.001). Schirmer's test was better in the preservative-free group (p < 0.001). Level of evidence for all ocular surface outcomes was low or very low. There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. We found no clinically relevant difference in mean change in IOP between the preserved and the preservative-free treatments. Data on adverse events used different methods and were incompletely reported. Although some measures of ocular surface health favoured preservative-free medications, more evidence is needed. The increasing use of preservative-free drops may be associated with better ocular surface and tolerability, but strong evidence from RCTs would be welcome.

Efficacy of beta-blockers in the treatment of sepsis

This meta-analysis is to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of beta-blockers in the treatment of sepsis. A total of 17 articles that met the inclusion criteria were included, and 10,385 cases were obtained. The meta-analysis results showed that patients with sepsis with beta-blocker usage had a significantly lower 28-day mortality. The heart rate decreased over time in patients with sepsis using beta-blocker. Moreover, central venous blood oxygen saturation increased after 24, 48, 72 hours of treatment; lactic acid and cardiac troponin I decreased after 48, 72 hours of treatment; and tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1β levels decreased significantly after 12, 24, 48, 72 hours of treatment (p&lt;0.05). In conclusion, beta-blockers reduce 28-day mortality and heart rate.

Abstract 14099: Beta-blockers Reduce Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure or Ischemic Heart Disease and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Introduction: In patients with heart failure (HF) and ischemic heart disease (IHD), beta-blockers (BB) are associated with improved mortality. However, in patients with co-morbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), this drug class is less utilized due to concerns about an unfavorable impact on the morbidity and mortality. Patients with COPD and heart disease have higher mortality than those with heart disease alone. There is a need to clarify the safety of BB in this population. Objective: To assess the effect of BB therapy on mortality in patients with heart disease and COPD. Methods: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE and PubMed inception until May 30, 2020 to identify articles of BB use in patients with COPD. The risk ratio (RR) of mortality with BB use was calculated using the Mantel Haenszel random effect model. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager Web (RevMan Web). A two-sided p value of &lt; 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis, comprising 133,538 patients (44,893 received BB, 88,381 received no control drug, and 264 received placebo). BB use was associated with reduced risk of mortality overall (14.8% vs. 19.9%, RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57 - 0.79), in patients with IHD (18.6% vs. 26.6%, RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50 - 0.82), and in patients with HF (8.1% vs. 23.6%, RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.41 - 0.75), Figure. BB were used to treat hypertension in one study, and it was associated with reduced risk of mortality (6.2% vs. 13.4%, RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28 - 0.78). In contrast, βB use was not associated with statistically significant reduced risk of mortality when given without a specified cardiovascular indication (25.0% vs. 32.5%, RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.59 - 1.15), figure. Conclusion: Beta-blockers are associated with improved mortality in patients with HF or IHD and COPD. A diagnosis of COPD should not preclude treatment with beta-blockers, as previous concerns likely over-stated risk.

Efficacy and safety of beta-blockers and prolonged bronchodilators in patients with heart failure with coronary artery disease and moderate to severe COPD

Abstract Purpose To compare clinical efficacy and safety of various treatment regimens with the inclusion of beta-blockers, RAAS antagonists (ACE inhibitors or ARBs), prolonged bronchodilators (LABA, LAMA) in heart failure patients with CAD and COPD. Methods 385 patients (292 men and 93 women), aged 66.3±4.1 years, with CHF classes II to III (NYHA) combined with moderate to severe COPD (GOLD) and with LVEF less than 45% were randomized into nine groups: enalapril + LAMA (control group), nebivolol + enalapril + LAMA, nebivolol + losartan + LAMA, nebivolol + losartan + LABA, nebivolol + losartan + LAMA/LABA, carvedilol + enalapril + LAMA, carvedilol + losartan + LAMA, carvedilol + losartan + LABA, carvedilol + losartan + LAMA/LABA. Patients of all groups received complex CHF treatment comprising diuretics, nitrates, cardiac glycosides (if necessary). Clinical examination, TTE, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), 24-hour electrocardiogram and blood pressure monitoring, respiratory function test were assessed at baseline and after 6 months of treatment. The quality of life was evaluated by MYHFQ, SGRQ and mMRC scale. Results After 6 months of therapy the improvement of clinical condition and quality of life were marked in all groups. At the end of observation period there was a significant improvement of patients clinical condition, quality of life, reduction of mean CHF FC and dyspnea severity, increase of exercise tolerance, slowing of progression of CHF and COPD, improvement of the parameters of intracardiac hemodynamics, structural and functional parameters of the left and right heart (a decrease in the size of the atria, LV volumes and internal dimension at end-diastole and end-systole, cardiac index, LVMMI, an increase of LVEF, a significant decrease in systemic vascular resistance and the pulmonary hypertension grade, significant improvement in systolic and diastolic function of the ventricles, regression of pathological remodeling of the heart, reduction of heart rate, duration and frequency of myocardial ischemia episodes (including its “silent” form). The best results were obtained in groups using a beta-blocker (nebivolol or carvedilol), a RAAS antagonist, and a combination of long-acting bronchodilators (indacaterol and tiotropium) – group 5 and 9. It is worth noting that beta-blockers, LABA and LAMA were well tolerated in all observation groups and serious adverse events were absent. Conclusions The appointment of 3-generation beta-blockers to patients with CHF on the background of CAD and COPD can significantly increase the effectiveness of treatment and does not cause a deterioration in spirometry in patients with such cardiopulmonary pathology. In our opinion, the most important point in the appointment of beta blockers to patients with moderate to severe COPD is low start dose and slow titration of the dose at the beginning of the therapy. It is advisable to include in the complex therapy of such patients a combination of LABA and LAMA as a basic bronchodilator support. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Safety of Beta-Blockers in COPD

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Safety of Beta-Blockers in COPD

Estimation of Atenolol Transfer Into Milk and Infant Exposure During Its Use in Lactating Women.

Atenolol lactation information is limited, and controversy exists over the safety of its use during breastfeeding. In this study, important parameters including milk-to-plasma ratio, ratio of infant plasma to maternal plasma, infant daily dosage, and relative infant dose were investigated. The findings from this study add information to existing data about atenolol transfer in human milk. This may help guide health professionals in decision making regarding the safety of beta blockers used by mothers during breastfeeding. Research aim: The aims of the study were to quantify concentrations of atenolol in human plasma and milk, to evaluate atenolol pharmacokinetics in lactating women, and to investigate subsequent infant exposure to atenolol via mother's milk. In this prospective, longitudinal observational study, participants were lactating mothers ( N = 3), 1 to 4 months postpartum, who had been taking atenolol for therapeutic reasons, and one 4-month-old breastfed infant. Eight milk samples were collected over 24 hr at different time points, together with a single blood sample from each lactating mother and the infant, and quantified using a new sensitive liquid chromatography mass spectrometry method developed for this study. Peak milk concentrations of atenolol were observed in the women at 4 hr (Tmax) after oral administration. The dose-normalized maximum concentrations (Cmax) of all patients were similar. The mean milk-to-plasma ratio of the patients who were taking 25 to 100 mg of atenolol was 8.57%. In the mother-infant pair study, the ratio (%) of infant plasma drug concentration to maternal plasma drug concentration observed (18.87%) was similar to the relative infant dose estimated (18.20%). The relative infant dose values (13.96%-18.20%) for all patients were within 10% to 25% of maternal dosage. Atenolol use during breastfeeding should be undertaken with some precaution. If clinically indicated, an alternate beta blocker may be preferred.

Effect of Carvedilol on Blood Pressure Variability

Hypertension is currently one of the chronic diseases most frequently encountered in clinical practice, affecting a growing number of people worldwide. According to the World Health Organization, the prevalence of hypertension in people over 25 years is approximately 40%, with one billion patients being considered as uncontrolled hypertensives in 2008. Hypertension is also associated with increased cardiovascular events including acute myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic renal failure and finally death. At present there are ample pharmacological tools to manage hypertension including beta blockers, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzymes inhibitor and angiotensin receptor inhibitor, among other agents. Although blood pressure is similarly reduced by these antihypertensive drugs, the long term benefits and the type of adverse events are not the same. As an example, beta blockers were considered a first-line treatment for this disease; however, in the last hypertension clinical guideline published in the United States, the JNC-8 (1) as well as in other clinical guidelines such as NICE in the United Kingdom, (2) this family of drugs was excluded as one of the initial therapies for hypertension. This decision was based on the increased incidence of cardiovascular events, such as cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction and stroke associated with the use of beta blockers, compared with other antihypertensive agents. Of note, these issues regarding the safety of beta blockers are mainly derived from studies with atenolol (3) and metoprolol. (4) Unfortunately, there is no similar evidence from clinical trials on the novel beta blockers with more powerful vasodilatory effect, such as carvedilol and nebivolol, which in addition have a lower risk of developing diabetes compared with classical beta blockers. The mechanism by which hypertension produces organ injury has not been clearly established. The hypothesis of mean blood pressure has been the most plausible; however, it only partially explains the pathophysiology of organ injury caused by hypertension. Subsequent studies have identified blood pres-

P0157 : Adherence and safety of beta-blockers in elderly patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension: A multi-center cross-sectional study

P0157 : Adherence and safety of beta-blockers in elderly patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension: A multi-center cross-sectional study

Abstract 17713: A Three year Retrospective Analysis of Adverse Cardiac Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients Using Cocaine on Beta-blockers

Background: It is an established fact that beta-blockers (BB) improve survival in patients with HFrEF. However cocaine abusers with HFrEF are currently excluded from this life-saving treatment due to concerns with a theoretical risk of unopposed alpha adrenergic receptor-mediated coronary vasospasms and possible myocardial infarctions (MI). Our study seeks to compare heart failure (HF) outcomes in patients on beta blockers with surreptitious cocaine abuse to those not receiving beta blockers. Methods: From our HF registry, we retrospectively identified 132 patients admitted to the hospital for CHF with related complaints like chest pain or shortness of breath between 2006 and 2008 and cocaine positive drug test. We reviewed the concomitant use of BB in relation to the primary composite end points: MI, total ER visits, HF related admissions 2006-2008, ejection fraction (EF), mean BNP and all- cause mortality. Characteristics of patients with and without BB use were compared using chi-square for categorical and t-test for continuous variables. Considering the variance in baseline characteristics between patients, we also adjusted for co-founding factors like age, sex, Body mass index (BMI) and race before evaluating the independent relationship between BB use and the composite primary endpoints listed above. Results: BB were used in 60 patients (45%), no distinction was made between selective BBs or nonselective BBs. The analysis of our cohort data showed no significant difference in the number of MI (p - 0.819), ER visits (p - 0.627), HF- related admissions (p-0.382), mean BNP (p-0.480), EF (p-0.273) in HF patients using cocaine on BB vs those not on BB. Findings were similar after adjusting for cofounding variables - race, sex, BMI and race (OR for having an MI with BB use was 1.185[95% CI 0.277-5.069]). Conclusions: BB treatment of HFrEF with concomitant cocaine abuse may be safer than previously suggested. Prospectively randomized trials will be needed to clarify the safety of beta blockers in cocaine abusing HFrEF patients. Limitations: Our study was limited by the absence of distinction between selective and nonselective BB as alpha-blocking BBs like carvedilol have been proposed as safe since they can moderate the theoretical alpha mediated effects of cocaine.

The safety of beta-blocker use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with respiratory failure in the intensive care unit

Background: The safety of beta-blockers as a heart rate-limiting drug (HRLD) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) has not been properly assessed in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. This study aims to compare the use of beta-blocker drugs relative to non-beta-blocker ones in COPD patients with ARF due to heart rate-limiting with respect to length of ICU stay and mortality.&#x0D; Methods: We performed a retrospective (January 2011-December 2012) case-control study in a level III ICU in a teaching hospital. It was carried out in a closed ICU by the same intensivists. All COPD patients with ARF who were treated with beta-blockers (case group) and non-beta-blocker HRLDs (control group) were included. Their demographics, reason for HRLD, cause of ARF, comorbidities, ICU data including acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score, type of ventilation, heart rate, and lengths of ICU and hospital stays were collected. The mortality rates in the ICU, the hospital, and over 30 days were also recorded.&#x0D; Results: We enrolled 188 patients (46 female, n = 74 and n = 114 for the case and control groups, respectively). Reasons for HRLD (case and control group, respectively) were atrial fibrillation (AF, 23% and 50%), and supraventricular tachycardia (SVT, 41.9% and 54.4%). Patients’ characteristics, APACHE II score, heart rate, duration and type of ventilation, and median length of ICU-hospital stay were similar between the groups. The mortality outcomes in the ICU, hospital, and 30 days after discharge in the case and control groups were 17.6% versus 15.8% (p &gt; 0.75); 18.9% versus 19.3% (p &gt; 0.95) and 20% versus 11% (p &gt; 0.47), respectively.&#x0D; Conclusions: Our results suggest that beta-blocker use for heart rate control in COPD patients with ARF is associated with similar ICU stay length and mortality compared with COPD patients treated with other HRLDs.

The safety of beta-blocker use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with respiratory failure in the intensive care unit

BackgroundThe safety of beta-blockers as a heart rate-limiting drug (HRLD) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) has not been properly assessed in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. This study aims to compare the use of beta-blocker drugs relative to non-beta-blocker ones in COPD patients with ARF due to heart rate-limiting with respect to length of ICU stay and mortality.MethodsWe performed a retrospective (January 2011-December 2012) case-control study in a level III ICU in a teaching hospital. It was carried out in a closed ICU by the same intensivists. All COPD patients with ARF who were treated with beta-blockers (case group) and non-beta-blocker HRLDs (control group) were included. Their demographics, reason for HRLD, cause of ARF, comorbidities, ICU data including acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II) score, type of ventilation, heart rate, and lengths of ICU and hospital stays were collected. The mortality rates in the ICU, the hospital, and over 30 days were also recorded.ResultsWe enrolled 188 patients (46 female, n = 74 and n = 114 for the case and control groups, respectively). Reasons for HRLD (case and control group, respectively) were atrial fibrillation (AF, 23% and 50%), and supraventricular tachycardia (SVT, 41.9% and 54.4%). Patients’ characteristics, APACHE II score, heart rate, duration and type of ventilation, and median length of ICU-hospital stay were similar between the groups. The mortality outcomes in the ICU, hospital, and 30 days after discharge in the case and control groups were 17.6% versus 15.8% (p > 0.75); 18.9% versus 19.3% (p > 0.95) and 20% versus 11% (p > 0.47), respectively.ConclusionsOur results suggest that beta-blocker use for heart rate control in COPD patients with ARF is associated with similar ICU stay length and mortality compared with COPD patients treated with other HRLDs.

Can beta-blockers be used for people with COPD?

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a disabling condition characterised by largely irreversible airflow obstruction, and affects over 3 million people in the UK.1 Due in large part to shared...

Bisoprolol and Fluvastatin for the Reduction of Perioperative Cardiac Mortality and Myocardial Infarction in Intermediate-Risk Patients Undergoing Noncardiovascular Surgery

This study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers and statins for the prevention of perioperative cardiovascular events in intermediate-risk patients undergoing noncardiovascular surgery. Beta-blockers and statins reduce perioperative cardiac events in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery by restoring the myocardial oxygen supply/demand balance and/or stabilizing coronary plaques. However, their effects in intermediate-risk patients remained ill-defined. In this randomized open-label 2 x 2 factorial design trial 1066 intermediate cardiac risk patients were assigned to bisoprolol, fluvastatin, combination treatment, or control therapy before surgery (median: 34 days). Intermediate risk was defined by an estimated risk of perioperative cardiac death and myocardial infarction (MI) of 1% to 6%, using clinical data and type of surgery. Starting dose of bisoprolol was 2.5 mg daily, titrated to a perioperative heart rate of 50 to 70 beats per minute. Fluvastatin was prescribed in a fixed dose of 80 mg. The primary end point was the composite of 30-day cardiac death and MI. This study is registered in the ISRCTN registry and has the ID number ISRCTN47637497. Patients randomized to bisoprolol (N = 533) had a lower incidence of perioperative cardiac death and nonfatal MI than those randomized to bisoprolol-control (2.1% vs. 6.0% events; hazard ratios: 0.34; 95% confidence intervals: 0.17-0.67; P = 0.002). Patients randomized to fluvastatin experienced a lower incidence of the end point than those randomized to fluvastatin-control therapy (3.2% vs. 4.9% events; hazard ratios: 0.65; 95% confidence intervals: 0.35-1.10), but statistical significance was not reached (P = 0.17). Bisoprolol was associated with a significant reduction of 30-day cardiac death and nonfatal MI, while fluvastatin showed a trend for improved outcome.

COMPARATIVE CONTROLLED STUDY OF ANTIHYPERTENSIVE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF CARVEDILOL IN PATIENTS WITH HYPERTENSION AND OBESITY OR DIABETES 2 TYPE (BASED ON RESULTS OF MULTICENTER TRIAL ACCORD)

Aim. To study efficacy and safety of beta-blocker with vasodilating properties carvedilol (Acridilole, Akrihin, Russia) as a part of the combined therapy of patients with arterial hypertension (HT) and diabetes mellitus 2 type (DM2) and/or obesity. Material and methods. 592 patients: 176 men (29,7%) and 416 women (70,3%) with HT were examined. 194 patients had D2 and 398 patients had obesity. Patients were randomized for carvedilol therapy (n=291) or control group (n=301). Carvedilol was prescribed additionally to current therapy in dose of 6,25 mg BID, in 2 weeks the dose was increased to 12,5 mg BID if it was necessary. Blood pressure (BP) and heart rate, number of angina attacks were registered at visits. ECG, laboratory analysis (plasma lipide profile, serum glucose, glycolised haemoglobin, serum K+ and Na+), evaluation of depression and anxiety status (according to special questionnaires) were performed on the first and the last visits. Results. 582 patients completed the study. 7 patients dropped out from carvedilol group and 3 patients - from control group. The levels of systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) were decreased during study, more significantly in carvedilol group (р&lt;0,0001). SBP decreased on 24,8 mm Hg in patients of carvedilol group and on 21,4 mm Hg in patients of control group. DBP decreased on 12,5 mm Hg and 11 mm Hg respectively. Angina attacks were registered less often in patients of carvedilol group (р=0,001). Serum glucose and lipid spectrum did not change in both groups. Depression level decreased in patients receiving carvedilol. 17 side effects were registered in carvedilol group and 15 - in control group (р=0,575) Conclusion. High antihypertensive efficacy of carvedilol is confirmed in hypertensive patients with DM2 and/or obesity. Good tolerability and metabolic neutrality of carvedilol is also observed.