Clinical outcomes with β-blockers for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Targeting G protein-coupled receptors for heart failure treatment

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Current treatment for patients with heart failure include drugs targeting G protein-coupled receptors such as β-adrenoceptor antagonists (β-blockers) and angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (or angiotensin II receptor blockers). However, many patients progress to advanced heart failure with persistent symptoms, despite treatment with available therapeutics that have been shown to reduce mortality and mortality. GPCR targets currently being explored for the development of novel heart failure therapeutics include adenosine receptor, formyl peptide receptor, relaxin/insulin-like family peptide receptor, vasopressin receptor, endothelin receptor and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor. Many GPCR drug candidates are limited by insufficient efficacy and/or dose-limiting unwanted effects. Understanding the current challenges hindering successful clinical translation and the potential to overcome existing limitations will facilitate the future development of novel heart failure therapeutics. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed issue Therapeutic Targeting of G Protein-Coupled Receptors: hot topics from the Australasian Society of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacologists and Toxicologists 2021 Virtual Annual Scientific Meeting. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v181.14/issuetoc.

Importance of reassessment to identify trajectories of chronic transition of clinical indicators in post-myocardial infarction management

Despite advances in multidisciplinary acute care for myocardial infarction (MI), the clinical need to manage heart failure and elevated mortality risks in the remote phase of MI remains unmet. Various prognostic models have been established using clinical indicators obtained during the acute phase of MI; however, most of these indicators also show chronic changes in the post-MI phase. Although relevant guidelines recommend follow-up assessments of some clinical indicators in the chronic phase, systematic reassessment has not yet been fully established and implemented in a real-world clinical setting. Therefore, clinical evidence of the impact of such chronic transitions on the post-MI prognosis is lacking. We speculate that post-MI reassessment of key clinical indicators and the impact of their chronic transition patterns on long-term prognoses can improve the quality of post-MI risk stratification and help identify residual risk factors. Several recent studies have investigated the impact of the chronic transition of some clinical indicators, such as serum albumin level, mitral regurgitation, and left-ventricular dysfunction, on post-MI prognosis. Interestingly, even in MI survivors with these indicators within their respective normal ranges in the acute phase of MI, chronic transition to an abnormal range was associated with worsening cardiovascular outcomes. On the basis of these recent insights, we discuss the clinical significance of post-MI reassessment to identify the trajectories of several clinical indicators and elucidate the potential residual risk factors affecting adverse outcomes in MI survivors.

Beta-Blockers after Myocardial Infarction and Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Most trials that have shown a benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction included patients with large myocardial infarctions and were conducted in an era before modern biomarker-based diagnosis of myocardial infarction and treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention, antithrombotic agents, high-intensity statins, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists.

METHODS

In a parallel-group, open-label trial performed at 45 centers in Sweden, Estonia, and New Zealand, we randomly assigned patients with an acute myocardial infarction who had undergone coronary angiography and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% to receive either long-term treatment with a beta-blocker (metoprolol or bisoprolol) or no beta-blocker treatment. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

From September 2017 through May 2023, a total of 5020 patients were enrolled (95.4% of whom were from Sweden). The median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.7). A primary end-point event occurred in 199 of 2508 patients (7.9%) in the beta-blocker group and in 208 of 2512 patients (8.3%) in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.16; P = 0.64). Beta-blocker treatment did not appear to lead to a lower cumulative incidence of the secondary end points (death from any cause, 3.9% in the beta-blocker group and 4.1% in the no-beta-blocker group; death from cardiovascular causes, 1.5% and 1.3%, respectively; myocardial infarction, 4.5% and 4.7%; hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, 1.1% and 1.4%; and hospitalization for heart failure, 0.8% and 0.9%). With regard to safety end points, hospitalization for bradycardia, second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, hypotension, syncope, or implantation of a pacemaker occurred in 3.4% of the patients in the beta-blocker group and in 3.2% of those in the no-beta-blocker group; hospitalization for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 0.6% and 0.6%, respectively; and hospitalization for stroke in 1.4% and 1.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent early coronary angiography and had a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%), long-term beta-blocker treatment did not lead to a lower risk of the composite primary end point of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction than no beta-blocker use. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; REDUCE-AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03278509.).

Beta Blockers in Contemporary Cardiology: Is It Better to Cast Them Out?

Beta blockers are one of the commonest prescription drugs in medicine and they have been thought to revolutionize the treatment of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the last century. In addition to HFrEF, they are prescribed for a variety of diseases in cardiology from hypertension to HF, angina, and stable coronary artery disease (CAD). The increased prescription of beta blockers in conditions like HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and stable CAD may be doing more harm than good as per the data we have so far. The available data shows that beta blockers are associated with increased stroke risk and atrial fibrillation (AF) in hypertension and in patients with HFpEF, they have been associated with decreased exercise capacity. In patients with stable CAD and patients with myocardial infarction with normal systolic functions, beta blockers don't offer any mortality benefit. In this article, we critically review the common indications and the uses of beta blockers in patients with HFpEF, CAD, hypertension and AF and we propose that beta blockers are over-prescribed under the shadow of their beneficial effects in patients with HFrEF.

Association of β-blocker use at discharge and prognosis of oldest old with acute myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

It is uncertain whether β-blockers are beneficial for long-term prognosis in older patients following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Thus, this study sought to examine the effect of β-blockers on long-term cardiovascular mortality (CVM) in the oldest old (≥ 80 years) with AMI.

METHODS

In this prospective, consecutive, non-randomized study, a total of 1156 patients with AMI admitted within 24 h after onset of symptoms were enrolled from January 2012 to February 2020. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to examine the impact of β-blocker use on prognosis. Furthermore, one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses were used to control for systemic differences between groups. The primary outcome was long-term CVM.

RESULTS

Among the enrolled subjects, 972 (85.9%) were prescribed with β-blockers at discharge. Over a mean follow-up of 26.3 months, 224 cardiovascular deaths were recorded. Both univariate [hazard ratio (HR), 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-2.13] and multivariate (HR, 1.29, 95% CI 0.79-2.10) Cox regression analyses showed that β-blocker use had no significant association with the long-term CVM, which was further demonstrated by PSM (HR, 1.31, 95% CI 0.75-2.28) and IPTW (HR, 1.41, 95% CI 0.73-2.69) analyses. Subgroup analyses according to sex, heart rate, hypertension, diabetes, revascularization, left ventricular ejection fraction, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers use showed consistent results as well.

CONCLUSION

Our findings first suggested that the use of β-blockers at discharge in oldest old with AMI was not useful for reducing post-discharge CVM, which need to be further verified by randomized controlled trials.

The Effect of Beta-Blocker Post-Myocardial Infarction With Ejection Fraction >40% Pooled Analysis From Seven Arabian Gulf Acute Coronary Syndrome Registries

The use of beta-blockers (BB) in reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) post-myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with reduced 1-year mortality, while their role in patients with mid-range and preserved LVEF post-MI remains controversial. We studied 31,620 patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in seven Arabian Gulf registries between 2005 and 2017. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were excluded. The remaining cohort was divided into two groups: BB group (n = 15,541) and non-BB group (n = 2,798), based on discharge medications. Patients in the non-BB group were relatively younger (55.3 vs. 57.4, P = .004) but higher risk at presentation; with higher Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score (119.2 vs 109.2, P < .001), higher percentage of cardiogenic shock (3.5 vs 1.4%, P < .001), despite lower prevalence of comorbidities, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia. BB use was associated with lower 1-year mortality in a multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusting for major confounders [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 0.71 (95% CI 0.51-0.99)]. This remained the case in a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching [adjusted OR: 0.34 (95% CI 0.16-0.73)]. In this study, using Arabian Gulf countries registries, the use of BB after ACS with LVEF >40% was independently associated with lower 1-year mortality.

Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of coronary microvascular diseases (2023 Edition)

Since the four working groups of the Chinese Society of Cardiology issued first expert consensus on coronary microvascular diseases (CMVD) in 2017, international consensus documents on CMVD have increased rapidly. Although some of these documents made preliminary recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of CMVD, they did not provide classification of recommendations and levels of evidence. In order to summarize recent progress in the field of CMVD, standardize the methods and procedures of diagnosis and treatment, and identify the scientific questions for future research, the four working groups of the Chinese Society of Cardiology updated the 2017 version of the Chinese expert consensus on CMVD and adopted a series of measures to ensure the quality of this document. The current consensus has raised a new classification of CMVD, summarized new epidemiological findings for different types of CMVD, analyzed key pathological and molecular mechanisms, evaluated classical and novel diagnostic technologies, recommended diagnostic pathways and criteria, and therapeutic strategies and medications, for patients with CMVD. In view of the current progress and knowledge gaps of CMVD, future directions were proposed. It is hoped that this expert consensus will further expedite the research progress of CMVD in both basic and clinical scenarios.

Personalized accelerated physiologic pacing

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is increasingly prevalent with a high socioeconomic burden. Pharmacological heart rate lowering was recommended to improve ventricular filling in HFpEF. This article discusses the misperceptions that have resulted in an overprescription of beta-blockers, which in all likelihood have untoward effects on patients with HFpEF, even if they have atrial fibrillation or coronary artery disease as a comorbidity. Directly contradicting the lower heart rate paradigm, faster heart rates provide haemodynamic and structural benefits, amongst which lower cardiac filling pressures and improved ventricular capacitance may be most important. Safe delivery of this therapeutic approach is feasible with atrial and ventricular conduction system pacing that aims to emulate or enhance cardiac excitation to maximize the haemodynamic benefits of accelerated pacing. This conceptual framework was first tested in the myPACE randomized controlled trial of patients with pre-existing pacemakers and preclinical or overt HFpEF. This article provides the background and path towards this treatment approach.

The effect of discontinuing beta-blockers after different treatment durations following acute myocardial infarction in optimally treated, stable patients without heart failure: a Danish, nationwide cohort study

AIMS

We studied the effect of discontinuing beta-blockers following myocardial infarction in comparison to continuous beta-blocker use in optimally treated, stable patients without heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using nationwide registers, we identified first-time myocardial infarction patients treated with beta-blockers following percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary angiography. The analysis was based on landmarks selected as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after the first redeemed beta-blocker prescription date. The outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and a composite outcome of cardiovascular events and procedures. We used logistic regression and reported standardized absolute 5-year risks and risk differences at each landmark year. Among 21 220 first-time myocardial infarction patients, beta-blocker discontinuation was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or recurrent myocardial infarction compared with patients continuing beta-blockers (landmark year 5; absolute risk difference [95% confidence interval]), correspondingly; -4.19% [-8.95%; 0.57%], -1.18% [-4.11%; 1.75%], and -0.37% [-4.56%; 3.82%]). Further, beta-blocker discontinuation within 2 years after myocardial infarction was associated with an increased risk of the composite outcome (landmark year 2; absolute risk [95% confidence interval] 19.87% [17.29%; 22.46%]) compared with continued beta-blocker use (landmark year 2; absolute risk [95% confidence interval] 17.10% [16.34%; 17.87%]), which yielded an absolute risk difference [95% confidence interval] at -2.8% [-5.4%; -0.1%], however, there was no risk difference associated with discontinuation hereafter.

CONCLUSION

Discontinuation of beta-blockers 1 year or later after a myocardial infarction without heart failure was not associated with increased serious adverse events.

Sustained beneficial effect of β-blockers on clinical outcomes after discontinuation in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction

Our previous study demonstrated that beneficial effect of β-blockers on clinical outcomes in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In clinical practice, β-blocker treatment is occasionally discontinued due to their side effect. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of discontinuation of β-blockers on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with STEMI. We analyzed the data and clinical outcomes of 901 patients (716 males, 58 ± 13-year-old) STEMI patients who underwent successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention. At discharge of index STEMI, 598 patients were treated with β-blockers (491 males, 56 ± 12-year-old). After more than 1-month β-blocker treatment, β-blockers were stopped in 188 patients for any reason. We classified patients into continuation of β-blockers (410 patients, 56 ± 12-year-old) and discontinuation of β-blockers groups (188 patients, 57 ± 11-year-old) according to discontinuation of β-blockers. Occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; death, recurrent MI and target vessel revascularization) during up to 10 years of follow-up was evaluated. Mean follow-up month was 56 ± 28 month. In 132 patients (22%), MACEs were occurred. The MACE-free survival rates in the 2 groups were not statistically different (log-rank P = .461). Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of discontinuation of β-blockers for MACEs was 1.006 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.701-1.445, P = .973; all cause of death, HR = 0.942, 95% CI = 0.547-1.622, P = .828; recurrent MI, HR = 0.476, 95% CI = 0.179-1.262, P = .136; target vessel revascularization, HR = 1.417, 95% CI = 0.865-2.321, P = .166). The MACE-free survival and survival rates of the non β-blockers treatment group was significantly worse than the discontinuation of β-blockers group (log-rank P = .003 and < 0.001, respectively). This study demonstrated that discontinuation of β-blockers was not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes after STEMI. The beneficial effect of β-blockers on clinical outcomes may persist in patients with initial β-blockers treatment at index STEMI.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2023 AHA/ACC/ACCP/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease" provides an update to and consolidates new evidence since the "2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease" and the corresponding "2014 ACC/AHA/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Focused Update of the Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease."

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from September 2021 to May 2022. Clinical studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and other evidence conducted on human participants were identified that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

This guideline provides an evidenced-based and patient-centered approach to management of patients with chronic coronary disease, considering social determinants of health and incorporating the principles of shared decision-making and team-based care. Relevant topics include general approaches to treatment decisions, guideline-directed management and therapy to reduce symptoms and future cardiovascular events, decision-making pertaining to revascularization in patients with chronic coronary disease, recommendations for management in special populations, patient follow-up and monitoring, evidence gaps, and areas in need of future research. Where applicable, and based on availability of cost-effectiveness data, cost-value recommendations are also provided for clinicians. Many recommendations from previously published guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data.

Beta-blocker therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction: not all patients need it

Most of the evidences for beneficial effects of beta-blockers in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were from the clinical studies published in the pre-reperfusion era when anti-platelet drugs, statins or inhibitors of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system which are known to reduce cardiovascular mortality of patients with AMI were not introduced. In the reperfusion era, beta-blockers' benefit has not been clearly shown except in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF; ≤40%). In the era of the early reperfusion therapy for AMI, a number of patients with mildly reduced EF (>40%, <50%) or preserved EF (≥50%) become increasing. However, because no randomized clinical trials are available until now, the benefit and the optimal duration of oral treatment with beta-blockers in patients with mildly reduced or preserved EF are questionable. Registry data have not showed the association of oral beta-blocker therapy with decreased mortality in survivors without heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction after AMI. In the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health of in-hospital survivors after AMI, the benefit of beta-blocker therapy at discharge was shown in patients with reduced or mildly reduced EF, but not in those with preserved EF, which provides new information about beta-blocker therapy in patients without reduced EF. However, clinical practice can be changed when the results of appropriate randomized clinical trials are available. Ongoing clinical trials may help to answer the unresolved issues of beta-blocker therapy in patients with AMI.

Comparative Effectiveness of Long-Term Maintenance Beta-Blocker Therapy After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Stable, Optimally Treated Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background The benefits of long-term maintenance beta-blocker (BB) therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been well established. Methods and Results Using the Korean nationwide registry, a total of 7159 patients with AMI treated with PCI who received BBs at discharge and were free from death or cardiovascular events for 3 months after PCI were included in the analysis. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to BB maintenance duration: <12 months, 12 to <24 months, 24 to <36 months, and ≥36 months. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, heart failure, or hospitalization for unstable angina. During a mean 5.0±2.8 years of follow-up, over half of patients with AMI (52.5%) continued BB therapy beyond 3 years following PCI. After propensity score matching and propensity score marginal mean weighting through stratification, a stepwise inverse correlation was noted between BB duration and risk of the primary outcome (<12 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.19 [95% CI, 1.95-2.46]; 12 to <24 months: HR, 2.10 [95% CI, 1.81-2.43];, and 24 to <36 months: HR, 1.68 [95%CI, 1.45-1.94]; reference: ≥36 months). In a 3-year landmark analysis, BB use for <36 months was associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.37-1.85]) compared with BB use for ≥36 months. Conclusions Among stabilized patients with AMI following PCI, longer maintenance BB therapy, especially for >36 months, was associated with better clinical outcomes. These findings might imply that a better prognosis can be expected if patients with AMI maintain BB therapy for ≥36 months after PCI. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02806102.

Effects of Long-Term Carvedilol Therapy in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Mildly Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

The benefits of long-term oral β-blocker therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; ≥40%) are still unknown. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of β-blocker therapy in patients with STEMI with mildly reduced LVEF. In the CAPITAL-RCT (Carvedilol Post-Intervention Long-Term Administration in Large-Scale Randomized Controlled Trial), patients with STEMI with successful percutaneous coronary intervention with an LVEF of ≥40% were randomly assigned to carvedilol or no β-blocker therapy. Among 794 patients, 280 patients had an LVEF of <55% at baseline (mildly reduced LVEF stratum), whereas 514 patients had an LVEF of ≥55% at baseline (normal LVEF stratum). The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and hospitalization for heart failure, and the secondary end point was a cardiac composite outcome: a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for heart failure. The median follow-up period was 3.7 years. The lower risk of carvedilol therapy relative to no β-blocker therapy was not significant for the primary end point in either the mildly reduced or normal LVEF strata. However, it was significant for the cardiac composite end point in the mildly reduced LVEF stratum (0.82/100 person-years vs 2.59/100 person-years, hazard ratio 0.32 [0.10 to 0.99], p = 0.047) but not in the normal LVEF stratum (1.48/100 person-years vs 1.06/100 person-years, hazard ratio 1.39 [0.62 to 3.13], p = 0.43, p for interaction = 0.04). In conclusion, long-term carvedilol therapy in patients with STEMI with primary percutaneous coronary intervention might be beneficial for preventing cardiac-related events in those with a mildly reduced LVEF.

Association of beta-blockers beyond 1 year after myocardial infarction and cardiovascular outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Beta-blockers (BB) are an established treatment following myocardial infarction (MI). However, there is uncertainty as to whether BB beyond the first year of MI have a role in patients without heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).

METHODS

A nationwide cohort study was conducted including 43 618 patients with MI between 2005 and 2016 in the Swedish register for coronary heart disease. Follow-up started 1 year after hospitalisation (index date). Patients with heart failure or LVSD up until the index date were excluded. Patients were allocated into two groups according to BB treatment. Primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, unscheduled revascularisation and hospitalisation for heart failure. Outcomes were analysed using Cox and Fine-Grey regression models after inverse propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

Overall, 34 253 (78.5%) patients received BB and 9365 (21.5%) did not at the index date 1 year following MI. The median age was 64 years and 25.5% were female. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the unadjusted rate of primary outcome was lower among patients who received versus not received BB (3.8 vs 4.9 events/100 person-years) (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04). Following inverse propensity score weighting and multivariable adjustment, the risk of the primary outcome was not different according to BB treatment (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04). Similar findings were observed when censoring for BB discontinuation or treatment switch during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from this nationwide cohort study suggests that BB treatment beyond 1 year of MI for patients without heart failure or LVSD was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes.

Clinical Outcomes of Calcium-Channel Blocker vs Beta-Blocker: From the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry

Background

Although current guidelines recommend beta-blockers (BBs) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the role of calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) has not been well investigated, especially nondihydropyridine.

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the effects of CCBs on cardiovascular outcomes compared with BBs in AMI because patients from East Asia have a higher incidence of a vasospastic angina component compared with Western countries.

Methods

Among 15,628 patients enrolled in the KAMIR-V (Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-V), we evaluated 10,650 in-hospital survivors who were treated with either CCBs or BBs. We applied a propensity score for 1:4 pair matching of baseline covariates and Cox regression to compare CCBs and BBs. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 1 year. The secondary endpoints were 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, which was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and readmission due to heart failure and stroke.

Results

There was a significant interaction with the treatment arm with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (P for interaction = 0.011). CCB groups at discharge had higher 1-year cardiac death and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events for patients with LVEF <50% (HR: 4.950; 95% CI: 1.329-18.435; P = 0.017; and HR: 1.810; 95% CI: 1.038-3.158; P = 0.037, respectively) but not for patients with LVEF ≥50% (HR: 0.699; 95% CI: 0.435-1.124; P = 0.140).

Conclusions

CCB therapy did not increase adverse cardiovascular events for patients after AMI with preserved LVEF. CCBs can be considered as an alternative for BBs in East Asian patients after AMI with preserved LVEF.

βeta blocker interruption after uncomplicated myocardial infarction: rationale and design of the randomized ABYSS trial

BACKGROUND

The long-term use of β-blocker after myocardial infarction (MI) when global left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is preserved has not been studied in the era of modern myocardial reperfusion and secondary prevention therapies. It is unknown whether β-blockers are useful in stable post-MI patients without reduced LVEF and without heart failure.

METHODS

The Assessment of β-blocker interruption 1 Year after an uncomplicated myocardial infarction on Safety and Symptomatic cardiac events requiring hospitalization (ABYSS) Trial enrolled in 49 centers in France, 3,700 patients with a prior (>6 months) history of MI and a LVEF >40%, chronically treated with a β-blocker and without any major cardiovascular event (MACE) in the past 6 months. These patients were randomized to interruption or continuation of their β-blocker therapy. The primary objective is to demonstrate the noninferiority of interruption vs continuation of the β-blocker therapy on the primary composite endpoint of all-cause death, stroke, MI, hospitalization for any cardiovascular reason at the end of follow-up (accrual follow-up) with a one-year minimum follow-up for the last randomized patient. Secondary objectives will focus on patient reported outcomes with the evaluation of the quality of life before and after randomization with the EQ5D-5L questionnaire. Enrolment has been completed.

CONCLUSION

The ABYSS trial evaluates the cardiovascular safety of β-blocker interruption in stabilized post-MI patients without heart failure nor reduced LVEF. ABYSS trial is a reappraisal of β-blockers life-long therapy in stable post-MI patients without reduced LVEF.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03498066 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Colchicine in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Colchicine, thought to exert its effect via reduction of inflammation, has recently been studied in patients following acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We performed a meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in this high-risk cohort, evaluating efficacy and safety.

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, clinical trial registries, and select conference proceedings were searched for RCTs comparing colchicine to placebo in patients following ACS. The primary outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary endpoints included stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause and cardiovascular death, and urgent revascularization. Analysis was performed at the longest available clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

Two RCTs with a pooled sample size of 5540 patients with 2778 (50.1%) receiving colchicine and 2762 (49.9%) placebo were included. In order to maximize consistency, composite efficacy endpoints between trials were modified. Compared to placebo, patients receiving colchicine had reduction in study-defined composite endpoint (5.5% vs. 7.6%) OR 0.67 (95% CI 0.46-0.98, p = 0.04, I² = 46%). Similarly, there was a significant reduction in cerebrovascular accidents (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.69, p = 0.004, I² = 0%) and repeat revascularization OR 0.36 (95% CI 0.14-0.90, p = 0.03, I² = 54%). There was no difference between cardiovascular death (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.52-1.62, p = 0.78, I² = 0%), non-cardiovascular death OR 1.27 (95% CI 0.72-2.24, p = 0.41, I² = 0%), MI at longest available follow-up OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.67-1.17, p = 0.39, I² = 0%) or resuscitated cardiac arrest OR 0.88 (95% CI 0.32-2.43, p = 0.81, I² = 0%) in those receiving colchicine.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest colchicine, in addition to guideline-directed medical therapy following acute coronary syndrome reduces MACE, cerebrovascular accidents, and rates of urgent revascularization at 2 years of follow-up.

Are beta-blockers safe and effective after myocardial infarction in patients with COPD?

ABSTRACT

Clinicians may be hesitant to prescribe beta-blockers in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who have a comorbid compelling cardiovascular indication for beta-blocker therapy. This article summarizes the available data on the safety and efficacy of beta-blockers in patients with COPD and recent myocardial infarction.

Beta-blockers in atrial fibrillation-trying to make sense of unsettling results

Atrial fibrillation is closely associated with heart failure and adversely affects outcomes. Beta-blockers are strongly recommended to avoid rapid ventricular conduction and tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy. In this Viewpoint article, we discuss an emerging body of evidence that questions beta-blockers as a preferred rate-control therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Relationships Among Heart Rate, β-Blocker Dosage, and Prognosis in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease in a Real-World Database Using a Multimodal Data Acquisition System

BACKGROUND

The optimal heart rate (HR) and optimal dose of β-blockers (BBs) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have been unclear. We sought to clarify the relationships among HR, BB dose, and prognosis in patients with CAD using a multimodal data acquisition system.Methods and Results: We evaluated the data for 8,744 CAD patients who underwent cardiac catheterization from 6 university hospitals and the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center and who were registered using the Clinical Deep Data Accumulation System. Patients were divided into quartile groups based on their HR at discharge: Q1 (HR <60 beats/min), Q2 (HR 60-66 beats/min), Q3 (HR 67-74 beats/min), and Q4 (HR ≥75 beats/min). Among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), those in Q4 (HR ≥75 beats/min) had a significantly greater incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) compared with those in Q1 (ACS patients: hazard ratio 1.65, P=0.001; CCS patients: hazard ratio 1.45, P=0.019). Regarding the use of BBs (n=4,964), low-dose administration was significantly associated with MACCE in the ACS group (hazard ratio 1.41, P=0.012), but not in patients with CCS after adjustment for covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

HR ≥75 beats/min was associated with worse outcomes in patients with CCS or ACS.

Acute Intoxication by Bisoprolol and Drowning: Toxicological Analysis in Complex Suicides

In complex suicides, more than one suicide method is applied at the same time or one after the other. The most common complex suicide includes the ingestion of drugs combined with drowning. A case of acute intoxication by Bisoprolol and drowning is reported. The dead body of a 40-year-old woman was discovered on a river side, soon after her husband found a suicide note at home. In the woman’s vehicle four empty boxes of Bisoprolol, a widely used beta blocker, were also found. Main autopsy findings were consistent with drowning and represented by plume of froth at the mouth and nostrils with frothy fluid also in the airways, water into the stomach, and a remarkable pulmonary edema as a result of fluid aspiration. Toxicological analyses were performed on peripheral blood, urine and gastric content samples using liquid and gas chromatography, coupled with mass spectrometry. Toxicological results were negative for ethanol and other common drugs of abuse. High levels of bisoprolol were found in blood (7.54 mg/L), far exceeding the therapeutic range, in the urine (1.14 mg/L), and gastric content (13.12 mg/L). Bisoprolol intoxication was assessed as a relevant contributing condition to the immediate cause of death represented by drowning. Although Bisoprolol would certainly have a heart-depressing effect, it is not possible to determine if the victim fell unconscious or if she simply collapsed into the water with a secondary drowning.

Role of β-blockers in Preventing Heart Failure and Major Adverse Cardiac Events Post Myocardial Infarction

β-blockers have been widely utilized as a part of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatment for the past 40 years. Patients receiving β-adrenergic blockers for an extended period following myocardial infarction have a higher chance of surviving. Although many patients benefited from β-blockers, many do not, including those with myocardial infarction, left ventricle dysfunction, chronic pulmonary disease, and elderly people. In individuals with the post-acute coronary syndrome and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the appropriate duration of betablocker therapy is still unknown. There is also no time limit for those without angina and those who do not need β-blockers for arrhythmia or hypertension. Interestingly, β-blockers have been prescribed for more than four decades. The novel mechanism of action on cellular compartments has been found continually, which opens a new way for their potential application in cardiac failure and other cardiac events like post-myocardial infarction. Here, in this review, we studied β-blocker usage in these circumstances and the current recommendations for β-blocker use from clinical practice guidelines.

Design and rationale of randomized evaluation of decreased usage of beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction (REDUCE-AMI)

AIMS

Most trials showing benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction (MI) included patients with large MIs and are from an era before modern biomarker-based MI diagnosis and reperfusion treatment. The aim of the randomized evaluation of decreased usage of beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction (REDUCE-AMI) trial is to determine whether long-term oral beta-blockade in patients with an acute MI and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) reduces the composite endpoint of death of any cause or recurrent MI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

It is a registry-based, randomized, parallel, open-label, multicentre trial performed at 38 centres in Sweden, 1 centre in Estonia, and 6 centres in New Zealand. About 5000 patients with an acute MI who have undergone coronary angiography and with EF ≥ 50% will be randomized to long-term treatment with beta-blockade or not. The primary endpoint is the composite endpoint of death of any cause or new non-fatal MI. There are several secondary endpoints, including all-cause death, cardiovascular death, new MI, readmission because of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, symptoms, functional status, and health-related quality of life after 6-10 weeks and after 1 year of treatment. Safety endpoints are bradycardia, AV-block II-III, hypotension, syncope or need for pacemaker, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke.

CONCLUSION

The results from REDUCE-AMI will add important evidence regarding the effect of beta-blockers in patients with MI and preserved EF and may change guidelines and clinical practice.

Adherence with cardiovascular medications and the outcomes in patients with coronary arterial disease: "Real-world" evidence

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular medications are vital for the secondary prevention of coronary arterial disease (CAD). However, the effect of cardiovascular medication may depend on the optimal adherence of the patients. This meta-analysis aims to determine the magnitude of adherence to vascular medications that influences the absolute and relative risks (RRs) of mortality in patients with CAD in real-world settings.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched through March 1, 2022. Prospective studies reporting association as RR and 95% confidence interval between cardiovascular medication adherence and any cardiovascular events and/or all-cause mortality in patients with CAD were included. A one-stage robust error meta-regression method was used to summarize the dose-specific relationships.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were included. There is a significant inverse linear association between cardiovascular medication adherence and cardiovascular events (p_nonlinearity  = .68) or mortality (p_nonlinearity  = .82). The exposure-effect analysis showed that an improvement of 20% cardiovascular medication adherence was associated with 8% or 12% lower risk of any cardiovascular events or mortality, respectively. In subgroup analysis, the benefit was observed in adherence of stain (RR: 0.90, for cardiovascular events, RR: 0.85, for mortality), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB)(RR: 0.90, for mortality), and antiplatelet agent (RR: 0.89 for mortality) but not in beta-blocker (RR: 0.90, p = .14, for cardiovascular events, RR: 0.97, p = .32 for mortality). Estimated absolute differences per 1 million individuals per year for mortality associated with 20% improvement were 175 cases for statin, 129 cases for antiplatelet, and 117 cases for ACEI/ARB.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from the real word showed poor adherence to vascular medications contributes to a considerable proportion of all cardiovascular disease events and mortality in patients with CAD.

Early ACEI/ARB use and in-hospital outcomes of acute myocardial infarction patients with systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Findings from the CCC-ACS project

Background

Few studies have evaluated whether acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with relatively low blood pressure benefit from early ACEI/ARB use in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Objectives

This study evaluated the associations of ACEI/ARB use within 24 h of admission with in-hospital outcomes among AMI patients with SBP < 100 mmHg and undergoing PCI.

Methods

This study was based on the Improving Care for Cardiovascular Disease in China-ACS project, a collaborative registry and quality improvement project of the American Heart Association and the Chinese Society of Cardiology. Between November 2014 and December 2019, a total of 94,623 patients with AMI were enrolled. Of them, 4,478 AMI patients with SBP < 100 mmHg and undergoing PCI but without clinically diagnosed cardiogenic shock at admission were included. Multivariable logistic regression and propensity score-matching analysis were used to evaluate the association between early ACEI/ARB use and in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a combination of all-cause death, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest.

Results

Of AMI patients, 24.41% (n = 1,093) were prescribed ACEIs/ARBs within 24 h of admission. Patients with early ACEI/ARB use had a significantly lower rate of MACEs than those without ACEI/ARB use (1.67% vs. 3.66%, p = 0.001). In the logistic regression analysis, early ACEI/ARB use was associated with a 45% lower risk of MACEs (odds ratio: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.33-0.93; p = 0.027). Further propensity score-matching analysis still showed that patients with early ACEI/ARB use had a lower rate of MACEs (1.96% vs. 3.93%, p = 0.009).

Conclusion

This study found that among AMI patients with an admission SBP < 100 mmHg undergoing PCI, early ACEI/ARB use was associated with better in-hospital outcomes. Additional studies of the early use of ACEIs/ARBs in AMI patients with relatively low blood pressure are warranted.

Cardioselective Versus Nonselective β-Blockers After Myocardial Infarction in Adults With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

OBJECTIVE

To investigate which types of β-blockers have better efficacy and safety profiles in patients with concomitant chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and myocardial infarction (MI) to address concerns about use of β-blockers in COPD.

METHODS

We identified 65,699 patients with COPD prescribed β-blockers after first MI in the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2013. Comparisons were performed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were heart failure hospitalization, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), and major adverse pulmonary event (MAPE).

RESULTS

A total of 14,789 patients prescribed β-blockers were enrolled, of whom 7247 (49.0%) used cardioselective β-blockers and 7542 (51.0%) used nonselective β-blockers. The cardioselective group had lower incidence rates of mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89 to 0.96), MACCE (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.998), heart failure hospitalization (subdistribution HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.91), and MAPE (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.98) at the end of follow-up after weighting. Similar results were also found in subgroup analysis between those prescribed bisoprolol and those prescribed carvedilol.

CONCLUSION

Patients prescribed a cardioselective β-blocker may have a lower incidence of all-cause mortality, MACCE, heart failure hospitalization, and MAPE than those prescribed a nonselective β-blocker. Cardioselective β-blocker treatment during hospitalization and continuing after discharge appears to be superior to nonselective β-blocker treatment in patients with COPD after MI.

Coronary Angioplasty and Stenting in Acute Coronary Syndromes Using Very Low Contrast Volume and Radiation Dosage Improves Renal and Cardiovascular Outcomes

Aim: To demonstrate that in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), using Cordis 6F Infiniti diagnostic catheters for angioplasty may represent a safe alternative associated with lower contrast volume and radiation dosage, improving cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

Material and Methods: In 1,800 patients with ACS (2,331 lesions/2,603 stents), angioplasty was performed with Cordis 6F Infiniti Thrulumen diagnostic catheters. Primary angioplasty was performed in 545 cases, and only balloon angioplasty in 67 patients. All procedures were performed through the femoral route, and switch-over to the radial route was made in 5 cases due to associated aortic/iliac obstructive lesions. Iodixanol was used in 76% of cases, and tirofiban in 99% of cases with adjusted dosages based on creatinine values. The mean contrast volume used per patient was 28 mL (± 6 mL) including the angiogram prior to the angioplasty.

Results: The median fluoroscopy time was 4.4 min (IQR 3–6.8), the mean fluoroscopy time was 5.59 min (± 0.28), the median dose-area product or kerma-area product was 1,507 µGym2 (IQR 918–2,611), median total or cumulative dose including backscatter was 2,702 µGym2 (IQR 1,805–4,217), and the median cumulative skin dose was 468 mGy (IQR 296–722). Groin hematoma was seen in 7 cases, proximal mild edge dissection in the deployed stent in 3 cases, and acute in-hospital stent thrombosis in 7 cases. In total, 33 deaths were registered and 19 of these patients had cardiogenic shock, of which 11 subjects were late presenters. Three patients died after discharge due to possible acute stent thrombosis.

Conclusions: Angioplasty and stenting can be performed safely in patients with acute coronary syndromes using Cordis 6F diagnostic catheters. The procedure was associated with a very low volume of contrast and radiation dose, leading to improved clinical outcomes..

The Hypertension Paradox: Survival Benefit After ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients With History of Hypertension. A Prospective Cohort- and Risk-Analysis

Background

Mortality after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is dependent from best-medical treatment after initial event.

Objectives

Determining the impact of prescription of guideline-recommended therapy after STEMI in two cohorts, patients with and without history of arterial hypertension, on survival.

Methods

1,025 patients of the Cologne Infarction Model registry with invasively adjudicated STEMI were dichotomized according to their history of arterial hypertension. We recorded prescription rates and dosing of RAS-inhibitors, β-blockers and statins in all patients. The primary outcome was all-cause death. Mean follow-up was 2.5 years.

Results

Mean age was 64 ± 13 years, 246 (25%) were women. 749 (76%) patients had a history of hypertension. All-cause mortality was 24.2%, 30-day and 1-year mortality was 11.3% and 16.6%, respectively. History of hypertension correlated with lower mortality (hazard ratio [HR], @30 days: 0.41 [0.27-0.62], @1 year: 0.37 [0.26-0.53]). After adjusting for age, sex, Killip-class, diabetes mellitus, body-mass index, kidney function and statin prescription at discharge 1-year mortality HR was 0.24 (0.12-0.48). At discharge, prescription rates for RAS-inhibitors, β-blockers and statins, as well as individual dosing and long-term persistence of RAS-inhibitors were higher in patients with history of hypertension. On the same lines, prescription rates for RAS-inhibitors, β-blockers and statins at discharge correlated significantly with lower mortality regardless of history of hypertension.

Conclusion

Patients with history of hypertension show higher penetration of guideline recommended drug therapy after STEMI, which may contribute to better survival. Better tolerance of β-blockers and RAS-inhibitors in patients with history of hypertension, not hypertension itself, likely explains these differences in prescription and dosing.

Beta-Blocker Use in Hypertension and Heart Failure (A Secondary Analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial)

Given the concern that beta-blocker use may be associated with an increased risk for heart failure (HF) in populations with normal left ventricular systolic function, we evaluated the association between beta-blocker use and incident HF events, as well as loop diuretic initiation in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). SPRINT demonstrated that a blood pressure target of <120 mm Hg reduced cardiovascular outcomes compared with <140 mm Hg in adults with at least one cardiovascular risk factor and without HF. The lower rate of the composite primary outcome in the 120 mm Hg group was primarily driven by a reduction in HF events. Subjects on a beta blocker for the entire trial duration were compared with subjects who never received a beta blocker after 1:1 propensity score matching. A competing risk survival analysis by beta-blocker status was performed to estimate the effect of the drug on incident HF and was then repeated for a secondary end point of cardiovascular disease death. Among the 3,284 propensity score-matched subjects, beta-blocker exposure was associated with an increased HF risk (hazard ratio 5.86; 95% confidence interval 2.73 to 13.04; p <0.001). A sensitivity analysis of propensity score-matched cohorts with a history of coronary artery disease or atrial fibrillation revealed the same association (hazard ratio 3.49; 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 10.06; p = 0.028). In conclusion, beta-blocker exposure in this secondary analysis was associated with increased incident HF in subjects with hypertension without HF at baseline.

Geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede bei koronarer Herzerkrankung

Die koronare Herzerkrankung ist die häufigste Herzerkrankung bei Frauen und Männern. Geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede in der Symptomatik, der Prognose und der Behandlung bei Patienten mit koronarer Herzerkrankung wurden bereits in zahlreichen Studien untersucht. Frauen sind älter, besitzen mehr Komorbiditäten, beklagen eher atypische Symptome, suchen später ärztliche Hilfe auf und werden weniger leitliniengerecht behandelt. In dem Artikel sollen geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede bei Patienten mit akutem und chronischem Koronarsyndrom zusammengefasst werden.

The Clinical Impact of β-Blocker Therapy on Patients With Chronic Coronary Artery Disease After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The general knowledge that β-blockers are cardioprotective for patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) is mainly extrapolated from positive evidence in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or heart failure. In this propensity score-matched cohort study of 1,170 pairs of patients with chronic CAD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, we analysed medical records for β-blockers with prescription doses and types in each patient at 3-month intervals after discharge. β-blockers were not associated with better clinical outcomes for mortality and MI. Additionally, no significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of β-blockers.

Background and Objectives

The outcome benefits of β-blockers in chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been fully assessed. We evaluated the prognostic impact of β-blockers on patients with chronic CAD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

A total of 3,075 patients with chronic CAD were included from the Grand Drug-Eluting Stent registry. We analyzed β-blocker prescriptions, including doses and types, in each patient at 3-month intervals from discharge. After propensity score matching, 1,170 pairs of patients (β-blockers vs. no β-blockers) were derived. Primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI). We further analyzed the outcome benefits of different doses (low-, medium-, and high-dose) and types (conventional or vasodilating) of β-blockers.

Results

During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.1 (3.0–3.1) years, 134 (5.7%) patients experienced primary outcome. Overall, β-blockers demonstrated no significant benefit in primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–1.24), all-cause death (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60–1.25), and MI (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.49–3.15). In subgroup analysis, β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause death in patients with previous MI and/or revascularization (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14–0.99) (p for interaction=0.045). No significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of β-blockers.

Conclusions

Overall, β-blocker therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with chronic CAD undergoing PCI. Limited mortality benefit of β-blockers may exist for patients with previous MI and/or revascularization.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03507205

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart disease in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Beta-blockers are recommended and are often used in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. However, it is currently unclear whether beta-blockers should be used in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methods has assessed the effects of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no treatment in patients without heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 40% in the non-acute phase after myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index - Expanded, BIOSIS Citation Index, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Turning Research Into Practice, Google Scholar, and SciSearch from their inception to February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing effects of beta-blockers versus control (placebo or no treatment) in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction, irrespective of publication type and status, date, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants with diagnosed heart failure at the time of randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed our published protocol, with a few changes made, and methodological recommendations provided by Cochrane and Jakobsen and colleagues. Two review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and major cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial reinfarction). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We systematically assessed risks of bias using seven bias domains and we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials randomising a total of 22,423 participants (mean age 56.9 years). All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. In all, 24 of 25 trials included a mixed group of participants with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST myocardial infarction, and no trials provided separate results for each type of infarction. One trial included participants with only ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All trials except one included participants younger than 75 years of age. Methods used to exclude heart failure were various and were likely insufficient. A total of 21 trials used placebo, and four trials used no intervention, as the comparator. All patients received usual care; 24 of 25 trials were from the pre-reperfusion era (published from 1974 to 1999), and only one trial was from the reperfusion era (published in 2018). The certainty of evidence was moderate to low for all outcomes. Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.90; I² = 15%; 22,085 participants, 21 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) and myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.76, 98% CI 0.69 to 0.88; I² = 0%; 19,606 participants, 19 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events (RR 0.72, 97.5% CI 0.69 to 0.84; 14,994 participants, 15 trials; low-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 98% CI 0.68 to 0.85; I² = 47%; 21,763 participants, 19 trials; low-certainty evidence). Hence, evidence seems to suggest that beta-blockers versus placebo or no treatment may result in a minimum reduction of 10% in RR for risks of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may not affect the risk of angina (RR 1.04, 98% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I² = 0%; 7115 participants, 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). No trials provided data on serious adverse events according to good clinical practice from the International Committee for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-GCP), nor on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blockers probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality and myocardial reinfarction in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers may further reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo or no intervention in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. These effects could, however, be driven by patients with unrecognised heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers on serious adverse events, angina, and quality of life are unclear due to sparse data or no data at all. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias, and incomplete outcome data bias alone could account for the effect seen when major cardiovascular events, angina, and myocardial infarction are assessed. The evidence in this review is of moderate to low certainty, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented here. Future trials should particularly focus on patients 75 years of age and older, and on assessment of serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP and quality of life. Newer randomised clinical trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of beta-blockers in contemporary patients without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction are to be assessed properly. Such trials ought to be designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

Meta-Analysis of the Usefulness of Beta-Blockers to Reduce the Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Without Prior Myocardial Infarction or Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Beta-blockers (BBs) are the core of coronary artery disease (CAD) pharmacotherapy and demonstrated a well-established benefit in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI). However, the prophylactic role of BBs to affect adverse outcomes in patients with stable CAD, especially among those without a pervious history of MI or left ventricular dysfunction, is not yet addressed. We aimed to determine the effects of beta-blockers on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with stable CAD without prior MI or left ventricular dysfunction. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for studies published from inception to March 31, 2021. Two researchers independently reviewed the database searches and selected eligible studies. A third reviewer was consulted whenever necessary. A total of 6 studies were included in the final analysis. BBs therapy did not reduce the risk of a MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.20), MI (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.34), and cardiovascular death (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.14). No statistically significant effect was observed between the participants on beta-blocker and control groups. In conclusion, our meta-analysis did not show the benefit of BBs in reducing MACE among patients with stable CAD without previous history of MI or left ventricular dysfunction.

Incident Heart Failure in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: The contemporary incidence of heart failure (HF) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. This prospective cohort study was designed to study the incidence and predictors of new-onset HF in CAD patients after PCI (ChiCTR1900023033). Methods: From January 2014 to December 2018, 3,910 CAD patients without HF history undergoing PCI were prospectively enrolled. Demographics, medical history, cardiovascular risk factors, cardiac parameters, and medication data were collected at baseline. Multivariable adjusted competing-risk regression analysis was performed to examine the predictors of incident HF. Results: After a median follow-up of 63 months, 497 patients (12.7%) reached the primary endpoint of new-onset HF, of which 179, 110, and 208 patients (36.0, 22.1, and 41.9%) were diagnosed as having HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HFrEF), HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), respectively. Higher B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or E/e' level, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) level, and atrial fibrillation were the independent risk factors of new-onset HF. Gender (male) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) prescription were the negative predictors of new-onset HF. Moreover, it was indicated that long-term ACEI/ARB therapy, instead of beta-blocker use, was linked to lower risks of development of all three HF subtypes (HFrEF, HFmrEF and HFpEF). Conclusions: This prospective longitudinal cohort study shows that the predominant subtype of HF after PCI is HFpEF and ACEI/ARB therapy is accompanied with reduced risks of incident HF across three subtypes.

MEdical TReatment Optimization in cardiac rehabilitation (METRO study) : a French multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is the right place to optimize the medical treatment in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.

AIMS

To report the medical management in CAD patients during CR and evaluate the consequences.

METHODS

CAD patients who attended a CR program within less than three months of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) were included in a prospective multicenter study. Medical treatments were analyzed at the beginning and at discharge of the CR stay. Results of exercise tests were compared between 4 groups. G1: unchanged medication, n=443, G2: beta-blockers or bradycardic agents adaptation n=199, G3: renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors adaptation, n=194, G4: both medications adaptation, n=164.

RESULTS

One thousand consecutive patients were included in 23 French CR centers (85.3% males; mean age 59.9 ± 11 years). The index event was ACS (68.5%), PCI (62.6%) and CABG (36.3%). During CR, we noted an adaptation for beta-blockers in 32.1%, in other bradycardic agents (ivabradine, verapamil, diltiazem, amiodarone) in 9.5%, and in RAS inhibitors in 36.3%. Patients of group 1 had an initial resting heart rate lower than in group 2 and 4, but at the final exercise testing, the range of the decrease was more important in group 2 and 4. The combination of physical training and therapeutic modifications resulted in similar exercise capacities in the four groups, from 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.2 MET (p=0.68), to 6.3, 6.5, 6.5 and 6.1 MET (p=0.44), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The METRO study showed that significant alteration in medical treatment during cardiac rehabilitation programs could take part in improving physical capacity.

State of the art approach to managing angina and ischemia: tailoring treatment to the evidence

Stable angina represents a chronic and often debilitating condition that affects daily activities and quality of life in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend a four-step approach for the medical treatment of patients taking into consideration hemodynamic variables (heart rate and blood pressure) and the presence or absence of left ventricular dysfunction. However, CCS patients often have several comorbidities and risk factors. Thus, a tailored approach that takes into consideration patient risk factors and comorbidities may have additional benefits beyond angina relief. This is a state of the art review of stable angina treatment based on the currently available evidence.

One-Year Landmark Analysis of the Effect of Beta-Blocker Dose on Survival After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background Although beta-blockers are recommended following myocardial infarction (MI), the benefits of long-term treatment have not been established. The study's aim was to evaluate beta-blocker efficacy by dose in 1-year post-MI survivors. Methods and Results The OBTAIN (Outcomes of Beta-Blocker Therapy After Myocardial Infarction) registry included 7057 patients with acute MI, with 6077 one-year survivors. For this landmark analysis, beta-blocker dose status was available in 3004 patients and analyzed by use (binary) and dose at 1 year after MI. Doses were classified as no beta-blocker and >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, >25% to 50%, and >50% of target doses used in randomized clinical trials. Age was 63 to 64 years, and approximately two thirds were men. Median follow-up duration was 1.05 years (interquartile range, 0.98-1.22). When analyzed dichotomously, beta-blocker therapy was not associated with improved survival. When analyzed by dose, propensity score analysis showed significantly increased mortality in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio,1.997; 95% CI, 1.118-3.568; P<0.02), the >0% to 12.5% group (hazard ratio, 1.817; 95% CI, 1.094-3.016; P<0.02), and the >25% to 50% group (hazard ratio, 1.764; 95% CI, 1.105-2.815; P<0.02), compared with the >12.5% to 25% dose group. The mortality in the full-dose group was not significantly higher (hazard ratio, 1.196; 95% CI, 0.687-2.083). In subgroup analyses, only history of congestive heart failure demonstrated significant interaction with beta-blocker effects on survival. Conclusions This analysis suggests that patients treated with >12.5% to 25% of the target dose used in prior randomized clinical trials beyond 1 year after MI may have enhanced survival compared with no beta-blocker and other beta-blocker doses. A new paradigm for post-MI beta-blocker therapy is needed that addresses which patients should be treated, for how long, and at what dose.

Beta-blockers in hypertension: overview and meta-analysis of randomized outcome trials

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses from randomized outcome-based trials have challenged the role of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension. However, because they often include trials on diseases other than hypertension, the role of these drugs in the choice of the blood pressure (BP)-lowering treatment strategies remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials that compared beta-blockers vs. placebo/no-treatment/less-intense treatment (BP-lowering trials) or beta-blockers vs. other antihypertensive agents in patients with or without hypertension (comparison trials). Among BP-lowering trials and according to baseline comorbidity, we separately considered trials in hypertension, trials without chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction, and trials with either chronic heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Seven fatal and nonfatal outcomes were calculated (random-effects model) for BP-lowering or comparison trials.

RESULTS

A total of 84 BP-lowering or comparison trials (165 850 patients) were eligible. In 67 BP-lowering trials (68 478 patients; mean follow-up 2.5 years; baseline SBP/DBP, 136/82 mmHg), beta blockers were associated with a lower incidence of major cardiovascular events [risk ratio 0.85 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.78-0.92] and all-cause death (risk ratio 0.81 and 95% CI 0.75-0.86). Restriction of the analysis to five trials recruiting exclusively hypertensive patients (18 724 patients; mean follow-up 5.1 years; baseline SBP/DBP 163/94 mmHg), a -10.5/-7.0 mmHg BP decrease was accompanied by reduction of major cardiovascular events by 22% (95% CI, 6-34). In 24 comparison trials (103 764 patients, 3.92 years of mean follow-up), beta-blockers compared with other agents were less protective for stroke and all-cause death in all trials and in trials conducted exclusively in hypertensive patients (averaged risk ratio increase 20 and 6%, respectively, for both cases).

CONCLUSION

Compared with other antihypertensive agents, beta-blockers appear to be substantially less protective against stroke and overall mortality. However, they exhibit a substantial risk-reducing ability for all events when prescribed to lower BP in patients with modest or more clear BP elevations, and therefore can be used as additional agents in hypertensive patients.

Effect of long-term beta-blocker treatment following myocardial infarction among stable, optimally treated patients without heart failure in the reperfusion era: a Danish, nationwide cohort study

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the long-term cardio-protective effect associated with beta-blocker (BB) treatment in stable, optimally treated myocardial infarction (MI) patients without heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using nationwide registries, we included patients with first-time MI undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during admission and treated with both acetyl-salicylic acid and statins post-discharge between 2003 and 2018. Patients with prior history of MI, prior BB use, or any alternative indication or contraindication for BB treatment were excluded. Follow-up began 3 months following discharge in patients alive, free of cardiovascular (CV) events or procedures. Primary outcomes were CV death, recurrent MI, and a composite outcome of CV events. We used adjusted logistic regression and reported standardized absolute risks and differences (ARD) 3 years after MI. Overall, 30 177 stable, optimally treated MI patients were included (58% acute PCI, 26% sub-acute PCI, 16% CAG without intervention). At baseline, 82% of patients were on BB treatment (median age 61 years, 75% male) and 18% were not (median age 62 years, 68% male). BB treatment was associated with a similar risk of CV death, recurrent MI, and the composite outcome of CV events compared with no BB treatment [ARD (95% confidence intervals)] correspondingly; 0.1% (-0.3% to 0.5%), 0.2% (-0.7% to 1.2%), and 1.2% (-0.2% to 2.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide cohort study of stable, optimally treated MI patients without HF, we found no long-term effect of BB treatment on CV prognosis following the patients from 3 months to 3 years after MI admission.

Impact of Bisoprolol on Ventricular Arrhythmias in Experimental Myocardial Infarction

Following acute myocardial infarction (AMI), early use of beta-blockers (BBs) reduced the incidences of ventricular arrhythmia (VA) and death in the pre reperfusion era. However, some studies have reported a worsening of clinical outcomes and therefore, this study used a porcine model of AMI to evaluate the efficacy of bisoprolol on VAs and mortality. Twenty pigs were divided into two groups with one group using oral bisoprolol which was given for 3 hours before the experiment and then maintained for 7 days. A loop recorder was implanted, AMI was induced by balloon occlusion for 60 min, and then, reperfusion. One week later, the echocardiography and loop recorder data were analyzed in the surviving animals. Bisoprolol did not increase the heart rate (62.9±14.5 vs 79.0±20.3; p=0.048), lower the rate of premature ventricular contractions (PVC) (0.8±0.8 vs 11.0±12.8; p=0.021) or tend to lower recurrent VA (0.6±0.5 vs 1.1±1.1; p=0.131) during coronary artery occlusion. After reperfusion, bisoprolol did reduce VA in the early AMI period (0.1±0.3 vs 4.2±4.6; p=0.001) and it was not associated with the extent of myocardial recovery. In this porcine model, early oral bisoprolol might help reduce the incidences of PVC and recurrent VA and determine whether effects are more pronounced during the early AMI period. Our results suggest that bisoprolol might help reduce lethal VA and cardiac death following AMI in this reperfusion era.

Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction and the effect of β-blockers after acute myocardial infarction

There is currently an ongoing debate about the 'grey area' of heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF). We evaluated characteristics, prognosis, and the effect of β-blockers on clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We included a total of 10,785 patients and divided them into three groups: EF 40-49% (HFmrEF; n = 2717; reference); EF < 40% (reduced EF [HFrEF]; n = 1194); and EF ≥ 50% (preserved EF [HFpEF]; n = 6874). The primary outcome was 2-year all-cause mortality. HFmrEF was intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF for baseline characteristics. The risk of all-cause mortality was lower for HFmrEF patients compared to HFrEF patients (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.710; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.544-0.927; P = 0.012). However, HFmrEF patients tended to be at higher risk for 2-year all-cause mortality than HFpEF patients (adjusted HR 1.235; 95% CI 0.989-1.511; P = 0.090). β-blockers were associated with reductions in all-cause mortality for the entire cohort (adjusted HR 0.760; 95% CI 0.592-0.975; P = 0.031). β-blockers were effective in patients with HFrEF (adjusted HR 0.667; 95% CI 0.471-0.944; P = 0.022), tended to be effective in patients with HFmrEF (adjusted HR 0.665; 95% CI 0.426-1.038; P = 0.072), but not effective in patients with HFpEF (adjusted HR 0.852; 95% CI 0.548-1.326; P = 0.478; interaction P = 0.026). In conclusion, clinical profiles and prognosis of patients with post-AMI HFmrEF are largely intermediate between HFrEF and HFpEF. β-blockers reduced or tended to reduce 2-year all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF or HFmrEF, respectively, but not those with HFpEF after AMI.