Efficacy and safety of out-of-hospital intravenous metoprolol administration in anterior ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction: insights from the METOCARD-CNIC trial

The role of β-adrenergic receptors in the regulation of cardiac tolerance to ischemia/reperfusion. Why do β-adrenergic receptor agonists and antagonists protect the heart?

BACKGROUND

Catecholamines and β-adrenergic receptors (β-ARs) play an important role in the regulation of cardiac tolerance to the impact of ischemia and reperfusion. This systematic review analyzed the molecular mechanisms of the cardioprotective activity of β-AR ligands.

METHODS

We performed an electronic search of topical articles using PubMed databases from 1966 to 2023. We cited original in vitro and in vivo studies and review articles that documented the cardioprotective properties of β-AR agonists and antagonists.

RESULTS

The infarct-reducing effect of β-AR antagonists did not depend on a decrease in the heart rate. The target for β-blockers is not only cardiomyocytes but also neutrophils. β1-blockers (metoprolol, propranolol, timolol) and the selective β2-AR agonist arformoterol have an infarct-reducing effect in coronary artery occlusion (CAO) in animals. Antagonists of β1- and β2-АR (metoprolol, propranolol, nadolol, carvedilol, bisoprolol, esmolol) are able to prevent reperfusion cardiac injury. All β-AR ligands that reduced infarct size are the selective or nonselective β1-blockers. It was hypothesized that β1-AR blocking promotes an increase in cardiac tolerance to I/R. The activation of β1-AR, β2-AR, and β3-AR can increase cardiac tolerance to I/R. The cardioprotective effect of β-AR agonists is mediated via the activation of kinases and reactive oxygen species production.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear why β-blockers with the similar receptor selectivity have the infarct-sparing effect while other β-blockers with the same selectivity do not affect infarct size. What is the molecular mechanism of the infarct-reducing effect of β-blockers in reperfusion? Why did in early studies β-blockers decrease the mortality rate in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and without reperfusion and in more recent studies β-blockers had no effect on the mortality rate in patients with AMI and reperfusion? The creation of more effective β-AR ligands depends on the answers to these questions.

Beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization, 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart diseases in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Acute myocardial infarction is caused by blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Beta-blockers are often used in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results ranging from harms, neutral effects, to benefits. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of beta-blockers for acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded and BIOSIS Citation Index in June 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Turning Research into Practice, Google Scholar, SciSearch, and the reference lists of included trials and previous reviews in August 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction. Trials were included irrespective of trial design, setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the Cochrane methodological recommendations. Four review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. Our primary time point of interest was less than three months after randomisation. We also assessed the outcomes at maximum follow-up beyond three months. Due to risk of multiplicity, we calculated a 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes and a 98% CI for the secondary outcomes. We assessed the risks of systematic errors through seven bias domains in accordance to the instructions given in the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 trials randomising a total of 85,550 participants (mean age 57.4 years). Only one trial was at low risk of bias. The remaining trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence according to GRADE ranged from very low to high. Fifty-six trials commenced beta-blockers during the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction and seven trials during the subacute phase. At our primary time point 'less than three months follow-up', meta-analysis showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of a reinfarction during follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 98% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.91; 67,562 participants; 18 trials; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.5% and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 196 participants. However, we found little or no effect of beta-blockers when assessing all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 97.5% CI 0.90 to 1.00; 80,452 participants; 46 trials/47 comparisons; high-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4% and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; 45,852 participants; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4%. Regarding angina, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect (RR 0.70, 98% CI 0.25 to 1.84; 98 participants; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 7.1%. None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. Only two trials specifically assessed major adverse cardiovascular events, however, no major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in either trial. At maximum follow-up beyond three months, meta-analyses showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.93, 97.5% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 25,210 participants; 21 trials/22 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% and a NNTB of 91 participants, and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 98% CI 0.83 to 0.98; 22,457 participants; 14 trials/15 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.2% and a NNTB of 83 participants. However, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect when assessing major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.81, 97.5% CI 0.40 to 1.66; 475 participants; 4 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.7%; reinfarction (RR 0.89, 98% CI 0.75 to 1.08; 6825 participants; 14 trials; low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.9%; and angina (RR 0.64, 98% CI 0.18 to 2.0; 844 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. None of the trials assessed quality of life. We identified two ongoing randomised clinical trials investigating the effect of early administration of beta-blockers after percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis to patients with an acute myocardial infarction and one ongoing trial investigating the effect of long-term beta-blocker therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our present review indicates that beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction probably reduce the short-term risk of a reinfarction and the long-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Nevertheless, it is most likely that beta-blockers have little or no effect on the short-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Regarding all remaining outcomes (serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP, major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up), the long-term risk of a reinfarction during follow-up, quality of life, and angina), further information is needed to confirm or reject the clinical effects of beta-blockers on these outcomes for people with or suspected of acute myocardial infarction.

Editor's Choice- Pathophysiology and therapy of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion syndrome

There is a need to find interventions able to reduce the extent of injury in reperfused ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) beyond timely reperfusion. In this review, we summarise the clinical impact of STEMI from epidemiological, clinical and biological perspectives. We also revise the pathophysiology underlying the ischaemia/reperfusion syndrome occurring in reperfused STEMI, including the several players involved in this syndrome, such as cardiomyocytes, microcirculation and circulating cells. Interventions aimed to reduce the resultant infarct size, known as cardioprotective therapies, are extensively discussed, putting the focus on both mechanical interventions (i.e. ischaemic conditioning) and promising pharmacological therapies, such as early intravenous metoprolol, exenatide and other glucose modulators, N-acetylcysteine as well as on some other classic therapies which have failed to be translated to the clinical arena. Novel targets for evolving therapeutic interventions to ameliorate ischaemia/reperfusion injury are also discussed. Finally, we highlight the necessity to improve the study design of future randomised clinical trials in the field, as well as to select patients better who can most likely benefit from cardioprotective interventions.

Neutrophil stunning by metoprolol reduces infarct size

The β1-adrenergic-receptor (ADRB1) antagonist metoprolol reduces infarct size in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. The prevailing view has been that metoprolol acts mainly on cardiomyocytes. Here, we demonstrate that metoprolol reduces reperfusion injury by targeting the haematopoietic compartment. Metoprolol inhibits neutrophil migration in an ADRB1-dependent manner. Metoprolol acts during early phases of neutrophil recruitment by impairing structural and functional rearrangements needed for productive engagement of circulating platelets, resulting in erratic intravascular dynamics and blunted inflammation. Depletion of neutrophils, ablation of Adrb1 in haematopoietic cells, or blockade of PSGL-1, the receptor involved in neutrophil-platelet interactions, fully abrogated metoprolol's infarct-limiting effects. The association between neutrophil count and microvascular obstruction is abolished in metoprolol-treated AMI patients. Metoprolol inhibits neutrophil-platelet interactions in AMI patients by targeting neutrophils. Identification of the relevant role of ADRB1 in haematopoietic cells during acute injury and the protective role upon its modulation offers potential for developing new therapeutic strategies.

A review of strategies for infarct size reduction during acute myocardial infarction

Advances in medical and interventional therapy over the last few decades have revolutionized the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Despite the ability to restore epicardial coronary artery patency promptly through percutaneous coronary intervention, tissue level damage may continue. The reported 30-day mortality after all acute coronary syndromes is 2 to 3%, and around 5% following myocardial infarction. Post-infarct complications such as heart failure continue to be a major contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Inadequate microvascular reperfusion leads to worse clinical outcomes and potentially strategies to reduce infarct size during periods of ischemia-reperfusion can improve outcomes. Many strategies have been tested, but no single strategy alone has shown a consistent result or benefit in large scale randomised clinical trials. Herein, we review the historical efforts, current strategies, and potential novel concepts that may improve myocardial protection and reduce infarct size.

Ischaemic conditioning and targeting reperfusion injury: a 30 year voyage of discovery

To commemorate the auspicious occasion of the 30th anniversary of IPC, leading pioneers in the field of cardioprotection gathered in Barcelona in May 2016 to review and discuss the history of IPC, its evolution to IPost and RIC, myocardial reperfusion injury as a therapeutic target, and future targets and strategies for cardioprotection. This article provides an overview of the major topics discussed at this special meeting and underscores the huge importance and impact, the discovery of IPC has made in the field of cardiovascular research.

Impact of the Timing of Metoprolol Administration During STEMI on Infarct Size and Ventricular Function

BACKGROUND

Pre-reperfusion administration of intravenous (IV) metoprolol reduces infarct size in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine how this cardioprotective effect is influenced by the timing of metoprolol therapy having either a long or short metoprolol bolus-to-reperfusion interval.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of the METOCARD-CNIC (effect of METOprolol of CARDioproteCtioN during an acute myocardial InfarCtion) trial, which randomized anterior STEMI patients to IV metoprolol or control before mechanical reperfusion. Treated patients were divided into short- and long-interval groups, split by the median time from 15 mg metoprolol bolus to reperfusion. We also performed a controlled validation study in 51 pigs subjected to 45 min ischemia/reperfusion. Pigs were allocated to IV metoprolol with a long (-25 min) or short (-5 min) pre-perfusion interval, IV metoprolol post-reperfusion (+60 min), or IV vehicle. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was performed in the acute and chronic phases in both clinical and experimental settings.

RESULTS

For 218 patients (105 receiving IV metoprolol), the median time from 15 mg metoprolol bolus to reperfusion was 53 min. Compared with patients in the short-interval group, those with longer metoprolol exposure had smaller infarcts (22.9 g vs. 28.1 g; p = 0.06) and higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (48.3% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.019) on day 5 CMR. These differences occurred despite total ischemic time being significantly longer in the long-interval group (214 min vs. 160 min; p < 0.001). There was no between-group difference in the time from symptom onset to metoprolol bolus. In the animal study, the long-interval group (IV metoprolol 25 min before reperfusion) had the smallest infarcts (day 7 CMR) and highest long-term LVEF (day 45 CMR).

CONCLUSIONS

In anterior STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, the sooner IV metoprolol is administered in the course of infarction, the smaller the infarct and the higher the LVEF. These hypothesis-generating clinical data are supported by a dedicated experimental large animal study.

Chest Pain of Suspected Cardiac Origin: Current Evidence-based Recommendations for Prehospital Care

Introduction

In the United States, emergency medical services (EMS) protocols vary widely across jurisdictions. We sought to develop evidence-based recommendations for the prehospital evaluation and treatment of chest pain of suspected cardiac origin and to compare these recommendations against the current protocols used by the 33 EMS agencies in the state of California.

Methods

We performed a literature review of the current evidence in the prehospital treatment of chest pain and augmented this review with guidelines from various national and international societies to create our evidence-based recommendations. We then compared the chest pain protocols of each of the 33 EMS agencies for consistency with these recommendations. The specific protocol components that we analyzed were use of supplemental oxygen, aspirin, nitrates, opiates, 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) regionalization systems, prehospital fibrinolysis and β-blockers.

Results

The protocols varied widely in terms of medication and dosing choices, as well as listed contraindications to treatments. Every agency uses oxygen with 54% recommending titrated dosing. All agencies use aspirin (64% recommending 325mg, 24% recommending 162mg and 15% recommending either), as well as nitroglycerin and opiates (58% choosing morphine). Prehospital 12-Lead ECGs are used in 97% of agencies, and all but one agency has some form of regionalized care for their STEMI patients. No agency is currently employing prehospital fibrinolysis or β-blocker use.

Conclusion

Protocols for chest pain of suspected cardiac origin vary widely across California. The evidence-based recommendations that we present for the prehospital diagnosis and treatment of this condition may be useful for EMS medical directors tasked with creating and revising these protocols.