Predictors, Trends, and Outcomes (Among Older Patients ≥65 Years of Age) Associated With Beta-Blocker Use in Patients With Stable Angina Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

A Case-Based Approach to the Management of Patients with Chronic Coronary Disease: Updates from the 2023 AHA/ACC Guidelines

The 2023 American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Multisociety Guideline for the Management of Patients with Chronic Coronary Disease presents important updates to the care of patients with chronic coronary disease. The recommendations of these guidelines inform the care for patients with 1) asymptomatic coronary artery disease, 2) stable angina or equivalent symptoms (e.g., dyspnea upon exertion), 3) symptomatic nonobstructive coronary disease including coronary microvascular dysfunction and vasospasm, and 4) left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction with known coronary artery disease. In this review, we aim to demonstrate key recommendations in the 2023 guideline using the following four hypothetical cases.

Do Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life Differ by the Number of Antianginals for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease? Insights from the BARI 2D Trial

Medical therapy, including antianginal treatment, is the cornerstone in the management of stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, it remains unclear whether combining antianginal agents provides benefits beyond monotherapy in terms of quality of life (QoL) and cardiovascular outcomes. We used data from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial, which compared cardiovascular and QoL outcomes in patients with SIHD and diabetes mellitus randomized to revascularization with intensive medical therapy or intensive medical therapy alone. We categorized patients into 3 groups: ≥2 versus 1 versus 0 antianginals. We compared patient characteristics, QoL metrics, and cardiovascular end points at baseline and at 5 years, creating a multivariable model to adjust for key clinical confounders. Of 2,368 patients, 348 patients (14.7%) were on 0 antianginals, 1,020 patients (43.1%) were on 1 antianginal, and 1,000 patients (42.2%) were on ≥2 antianginals at baseline. The most common antianginal class was β blockers. At baseline, patients on 0 antianginals had better QoL metrics (self-health score, Duke activity status index, and energy rating) than patients on ≥2 antianginals. However, at the 1-year follow-up, patients taking only 1 antianginal showed greater QoL improvement than those taking 0 antianginal, without any incremental benefit in QoL metrics seen in patients taking ≥2 antianginal agents, even after adjusting for multiple covariates such as age, heart failure, diabetes control, and myocardial jeopardy index. Lastly, at the 5-year follow-up, after adjustment, there were no differences in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, or myocardial infarction between patients taking different numbers of antianginals. Adults on a single antianginal for SIHD and diabetes mellitus had similar or better improvements in QoL than those on 2 or more antianginal agents at 1 year of follow-up. These findings merit further research to better understand the impact of medical therapy intensity on QoL in patients with SIHD and associated co-morbidities.

Roles of β-adrenoceptor Subtypes and Therapeutics in Human Cardiovascular Disease: Heart Failure, Tachyarrhythmias and Other Cardiovascular Disorders

β-Adrenoceptors (β-ARs) provide an important therapeutic target for the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Three β-ARs, β1-AR, β2-AR, β3-AR are localized to the human heart. Activation of β1-AR and β2-ARs increases heart rate, force of contraction (inotropy) and consequently cardiac output to meet physiological demand. However, in disease, chronic over-activation of β1-AR is responsible for the progression of disease (e.g. heart failure) mediated by pathological hypertrophy, adverse remodelling and premature cell death. Furthermore, activation of β1-AR is critical in the pathogenesis of cardiac arrhythmias while activation of β2-AR directly influences blood pressure haemostasis. There is an increasing awareness of the contribution of β2-AR in cardiovascular disease, particularly arrhythmia generation. All β-blockers used therapeutically to treat cardiovascular disease block β1-AR with variable blockade of β2-AR depending on relative affinity for β1-AR vs β2-AR. Since the introduction of β-blockers into clinical practice in 1965, β-blockers with different properties have been trialled, used and evaluated, leading to better understanding of their therapeutic effects and tolerability in various cardiovascular conditions. β-Blockers with the property of intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA), i.e. β-blockers that also activate the receptor, were used in the past for post-treatment of myocardial infarction and had limited use in heart failure. The β-blocker carvedilol continues to intrigue due to numerous properties that differentiate it from other β-blockers and is used successfully in the treatment of heart failure. The discovery of β3-AR in human heart created interest in the role of β3-AR in heart failure but has not resulted in therapeutics at this stage.

Impact of Optimal Medical Therapy on Long-Term Outcomes After Myocardial Revascularization for Multivessel Coronary Disease

Although optimal medical therapy (OMT) after coronary revascularization is advocated for intensive secondary prevention, its criteria and effect on long-term outcomes are uncertain. Using data from the ASAN-Multivessel (Asan Medical Center-Multivessel Revascularization) registry, we identified 8,311 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 3,115) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n = 5,196). OMT was defined as the combination of minimum of 3 medications in 4 drug classes (antiplatelet drugs, statins, β blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers). Two primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious composite outcome of death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or stroke at 10 years. Of 8,311 patients, 4,321 (52.0%) followed OMT. In the 3,397 propensity-score-matched cohort, OMT status compared with non-OMT status was significantly associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (10.7% vs 18.7%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47 to 0.65) and serious composite outcome (14.5% vs 22.5%, HR 0.635, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.73) at 10 years. The association on 10-year mortality was more prominent in the PCI group (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.56) than in the CABG group (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.90) with a significant interaction (p = 0.001). Overall findings were consistent using different OMT criteria (all 4 types of medications). In conclusion, OMT significantly lowered the risks of mortality and major cardiovascular events at 10 years in patients with multivessel revascularization. The OMT impact on mortality was more remarkable in the PCI group than in the CABG group. This work was registered at http://ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02039752).

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.

Effect of Beta-Blocker on Long-Term Major Cardiovascular Events in High Atherosclerotic Risk Population

PURPOSE

Beta-blocker is a frequently used medication in cardiovascular diseases. However, long-term benefit of beta-blocker in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection function (LVEF) on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) is uncertain.

METHODS

The Cohort Of patients with high Risk for cardiovascular Events (CORE-Thailand) was a prospective study that enrolled Thai patients with high atherosclerotic risk including multiple atherosclerotic risk factors and established atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. Baseline demographic data, co-morbidities and medication were recorded. Patients were followed for 5 years. Patients with LVEF<50% were excluded. Primary outcome was the effect of beta-blocker on the occurrence of MACEs including all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke (3P-MACEs). Propensity score matching was used to control confounding factors.

RESULTS

There was a total of 8513 patients in the pre-matched cohort, 4418 were taking beta-blocker and 4095 were not. After adjustment of confounders, beta-blocker was an independent predictor of 3P-MACEs (adjusted HR 1.29;95% CI 1.12-1.49;p<0.001). After propensity score matching, 4686 patients remained in the post-matched cohort. Propensity score analysis showed consistent results in which patient taking beta-blocker had higher risk of 3P-MACEs (adjusted HR 1.29;95% CI 1.10-1.53;p=0.002). Subgroup analysis in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) indicated that taking beta-blocker did not increase the incidence of 3P-MACEs (adjusted HR 0.99;95% CI 0.76-1.29) while those without CAD did (adjusted HR 1.51; 95% CI, 1.22-1.86;p-interaction=0.015).

CONCLUSION

In patients with high atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk, taking beta-blockers had a higher risk of 3P-MACEs. Care should be taken when prescribing beta-blockers to patients without a clear indication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

TCTR20130520001 registered in Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/ , date of registration 20 May 2013.

Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Older Adults: Recent Advances and Gaps in Evidence

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent in older adults, yet its management remains challenging. Treatment choices are made complex by the frailty burden of older patients, a high prevalence of comorbidities and body composition abnormalities (e.g., sarcopenia), the complexity of coronary anatomy, and the frequent presence of multivessel disease, as well as the coexistence of major ischemic and bleeding risk factors. Recent randomized clinical trials and epidemiological studies have provided new data on optimal management of complex patients with CAD. However, frail older adults are still underrepresented in the literature. This narrative review aims to highlight the importance of assessing frailty as an aid to guide therapeutic decision-making and tailor CAD management to the specific needs of older adults, taking into account age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes, polypharmacy, and potential drug interactions. We also discuss gaps in the evidence and offer perspectives on how best in the future to optimize the global strategy of CAD management in older adults.

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

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have failed to show a cardioprotective benefit of beta-blockers in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the association between beta-blockers and cardiovascular events in patients with stable CAD using a new user design.

METHODS

All patients aged >66 years undergoing elective coronary angiography in Ontario, Canada, from 2009 to 2019 with diagnosed obstructive CAD were included. Exclusion criteria included heart failure or a recent myocardial infarction, as well as having a beta-blocker prescription claim in the previous year. Beta-blocker use was defined as having at least 1 beta-blocker prescription claim in the 90 days preceding or after the index coronary angiography. The main outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure or myocardial infarction. Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score was used to account for confounding.

RESULTS

This study included 28,039 patients (mean age: 73.0 ± 5.6 years; 66.2% male), and 12,695 of those (45.3%) were newly prescribed beta-blockers. The 5-year risks of the primary outcome were 14.3% in the beta-blocker group and 16.1% in the no beta-blocker group (absolute risk reduction: -1.8%; 95% CI: -2.8 to -0.8; HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.86-0.98; P = 0.006). This result was driven by reductions in myocardial infarction hospitalization (cause-specific HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77-0.99; P = 0.031), whereas no differences were observed in all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with angiographically documented stable CAD without heart failure or a recent myocardial infarction, beta-blockers were associated with a small but significant reduction in cardiovascular events at 5 years.

Beta-Blockers in the Prevention and Treatment of Ischemic Heart Disease: Evidence and Clinical Practice

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most prevalent cardiovascular disease characterized by atherosclerotic plaque buildup that can lead to partial or full obstruction of blood flow in the coronary arteries. Treatment for CAD involves a combination of lifestyle changes, pharmacologic therapy, and modern revascularization procedures. Beta-adrenoceptor antagonists (or beta-blockers) have been widely used for decades as a key therapy for CAD. In this review, prior studies are examined to better understand beta-adrenoceptor antagonist use in patients with acute coronary syndrome, stable coronary heart disease, and in the perioperative setting. The evidence for the benefit of beta-blocker therapy is well established for patients with acute myocardial infarction, but it diminishes as the time from the index cardiac event elapses. The evidence for benefit in the perioperative setting is not strong.

Assessment of the Quality of Drug Therapy in Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease in the Second Stage of the ALIGN Study

Aim. To assess adjusted pharmacotherapy for prescribing drugs of the main classes, according to clinical guidelines, and achieving target levels of lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with stable coronary heart disease (CHD).

Material and methods. Of the 73 patients included in the ALIGN study, 64 patients (53 males and 11 females; mean age 68,2±9,4 years) with stable coronary artery disease attended a second visit (3 months after the initial treatment adjustment). Prescribed drug therapy, its compliance with clinical guidelines, achievement of lipid profile and blood pressure (BP) targets were studied in all patients.

Results. An increase in the frequency of taking beta-blockers (p=0.002), lipid-lowering drugs (p=0.008) by patients was found during the second visit. The proportion of patients taking all 4 groups of drugs according to clinical guidelines (statins, antiplatelet agents, beta-blockers, angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors / angiotensin II receptor blockers) increased from 44% to 65.5% (p<0.001) after correction of therapy, as well as an increase in the proportion of patients taking 1 antianginal drug in the presence of exertional angina from 75% to 89% (p<0.001) was found. About 90% of hypertensive patients achieved the target level of systolic blood pressure (p<0.001). Achievement of the target level of cholesterol low density lipoprotein (<1.8 mmol/l) during the second visit was found in half of the patients (p=0.004).

Conclusion. Despite the initial correction of drug therapy by the staff of the cardiology department, the prescribed treatment for patients with stable coronary artery disease did not in all cases comply with clinical guidelines due to insufficient adherence of doctors and insufficient adherence of patients to prescribed medical recommendations.

Working group of the register PROFILE: Voronina V. P., Dmitrieva N. A., Komkova N. A., Zagrebelny A.V., Kutishenko N.P., Lerman O.V., Lukina Yu. V., Tolpygina S.N., Martsevich S.Yu.

Long-Term Beta-Blocker Therapy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background

It is unclear whether beta-blocker treatment is advantageous in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We evaluated the clinical impact of long-term beta-blocker maintenance in patients with stable CAD after PCI with drug-eluting stent (DES).

Methods

From a nationwide cohort database, we identified the stable CAD patients without current or prior history of myocardial infarction or heart failure who underwent DES implantation. An intention-to-treat principle was used to analyze the impact of beta-blocker treatment on long-term outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) composed of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization with heart failure.

Results

After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, a total of 78,380 patients with stable CAD was enrolled; 45,746 patients with and 32,634 without beta-blocker treatment. At 5 years after PCI with a 6-month quarantine period, the adjusted incidence of MACE was significantly higher in patients treated with beta-blockers [10.0 vs. 9.1%; hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% CI 1.06–1.16, p &lt; 0.001] in an intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference in all-cause death between patients treated with and without beta-blockers (8.1 vs. 8.2%; HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94–1.04, p = 0.62). Statistical analysis with a time-varying Cox regression and rank-preserving structure failure time model revealed similar results to the intention-to-treat analysis.

Conclusions

Among patients with stable CAD undergoing DES implantation, long-term maintenance with beta-blocker treatment might not be associated with clinical outcome improvement.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT04715594).

Does the ISCHEMIA Trial Apply to My Patients?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The ISCHEMIA trial demonstrated no difference in myocardial infarction or death in patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or large ischemia territory treated either with invasive revascularization or optimal medical therapy. Whether the findings of the randomized control trial relates to real-world outcomes is uncertain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy has had a significant impact on the prognosis of coronary artery disease. Various observational data appear to indicate limited generalizability of the ISCHEMIA trial in different populations. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the optimal modality of therapy in patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The applicability of ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-CKD trials still requires further validation.

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.

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

Long-term impact of β-blocker in elderly patients without myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention

AIMS

Little is known about the long-term outcomes of β-blockers use in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) without myocardial infarction (MI) and reduced ejection fraction (rEF). However, more attention should be paid to the oral administration of β-blockers in elderly patients who are susceptible to heart failure (HF), sinus node dysfunction, or rate response insufficiency. We aimed to evaluate the long-term impact of β-blockers in elderly patients with CAD without MI or systolic HF who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 1018 consecutive elderly patients with CAD (mean age, 72 ± 7 years; 77% men) who underwent their first intervention between 2010 and 2018 were included in this study. According to the presence or absence of the use of β-blockers, 514 patients (50.5%) were allocated to the β-blocker group, and 504 (49.5%) to the non-β-blocker group. We evaluated the incidence of 4-point major adverse cardiovascular events (4P-MACE), including cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, non-fatal stroke, admission for HF, target vessel revascularization (TVR), and all-cause death. We focused on the association between chronotropic incompetence of β-blockers and incidence of a new HF and analysed the results using an exercise electrocardiogram regularly performed in the outpatient department after percutaneous coronary intervention. During a median follow-up duration of 5.1 years, 83 patients (8.3%) developed 4P-MACE, including cardiovascular death in 17, non-fatal MI in 13, non-fatal stroke in 25, and admission for HF in 39 patients. Additionally, 124 patients (12.2%) had a TVR and 104 (10.2%) died of other causes. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the cumulative incidence rate of 4P-MACE in the β-blocker group was significantly higher than that in the non-β-blocker group (15.4% vs. 10.0%, log-rank test, P = 0.015). Above all, the cumulative incidence rate of admission for HF in the β-blocker group was significantly higher (8.8% vs. 3.2%, log-rank test, P < 0.001). The β-blocker group had significantly lower resting heart rate, stress heart rate, and stress-rest Δ heart rate on exercise electrocardiogram. Multivariate Cox hazard analysis revealed that EF, β-blocker use, stress-rest Δ heart rate, and CKD were strong independent predictors of admission for HF.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term β-blocker use was significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events in elderly patients with CAD without MI or systolic HF. In particular, the chronotropic incompetence action of β-blockers could increase the risk of admission for HF in elderly patients with CAD without MI and systolic HF, and the present findings warrant further investigation.

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.

Association Between β-Blockers and Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Current Insights From the SwedeHF Registry

BACKGROUND

β-Blockers have an uncertain effect in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction of 50% or higher (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included patients with HFpEF from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) enrolled from 2011 through 2018. In a 2:1 propensity-score matched analysis (β-blocker use vs nonuse), we assessed the primary outcome first HF hospitalization, the coprimary outcome cardiovascular (CV) death, and the secondary outcomes of all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death. We performed intention-to-treat and a per-protocol consistency analyses. There were a total of 14,434 patients (median age 79 years, IQR 71-85 years, 51% women); 80% were treated with a β-blocker at baseline. Treated patients were younger and had higher rates of atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease, and higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. In the 4412:2206 patient matched cohort, at 5 years, 42% (95% CI 40%-44%) vs 44% (95% CI 41%-47%) had a HF admission and 38% (IQR 36%-40%) vs 40% (IQR 36%-42%) died from CV causes. In the intention-to-treat analysis, β-blocker use was not associated with HF admissions (hazard ratio 0.95 [95% CI 0.87-1.05, P = .31]) or CV death (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% CI 0.85-1.03, P = .19]). In the subgroup analyses, men seemed to have a more favorable association between β-blockers and outcomes than did women. There were no associations between β-blocker use and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFpEF, β-blocker use is common but not associated with changes in HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. In the absence of a strong rational and randomized control trials the case for β-blockers in HFpEF remains inconclusive.

BULLET POINTS

● The effect of β-blockers with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction of 50% or greater is uncertain.● In a propensity score-matched heart failure with preserved ejection fraction analysis in the SwedeHF registry, β-blockers were not associated with a change in risk for heart failure admissions or cardiovascular deaths.

LAY SUMMARY

The optimal treatment for heart failure with a preserved pump function remains unknown. Despite the lack of scientific studies, β-blockers are very commonly used. When matching patients with a similar risk profile in a large heart failure registry, the use of β-blockers for the treatment of heart failure with a preserved pump function was not associated with any changes in heart failure hospital admissions or cardiovascular death.

Medical and Revascularization Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: An Overview

Stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) affects approximately 10 million Americans with 500,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Patients with SIHD are primarily managed in the outpatient setting with aggressive cardiovascular risk factor modification via medical therapy and lifestyle changes. Currently, this approach is considered as the mainstay of treatment. The recently published ISCHEMIA trial has established the noninferiority of medical therapy in comparison to coronary revascularization in patients with moderate to severe ischemia. Percutaneous coronary intervention is currently recommended for patients with significant left main disease, large ischemic myocardial burden, and patients with severe refractory angina despite maximal medical therapy.

Beta-Blockers, Calcium Channel Blockers, and Mortality in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine the current clinical evidence behind the use of calcium channel blockers (CCB) and beta-blockers (BB) for the treatment of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) and their effect on mortality.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current evidence suggests that BB use as a first line antianginal medication is associated with lower 5-year all-cause mortality only in patients who had MI within a year. This could be driven due to their effects reducing the sympathetic neuro-hormonal activation of more acutely ill patients. The use of CCB as an antianginal therapy, although proven effective in multiple trials both as monotherapy and combined with other agents, has not shown mortality benefit. Both BB and CCB are effective antianginals, and the selection among them depends on the patient clinical presentation and comorbidities. BB are the only ones that have shown survival benefit in SCAD, particularly the first year post-MI.

Revascularization Rates and Associated Costs in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Initiating Ranolazine Versus Traditional Antianginals as Add-on Therapy

To assess the frequency and costs of revascularization procedures in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) initiating ranolazine versus traditional antianginals. Adults (≥18 years) with a diagnosis of SIHD who initiated ranolazine or a traditional antianginal (beta-blocker [BB], calcium channel blocker [CCB], or long-acting nitrate [LAN]) as second or third line therapy between 2008 and 2016, were selected from the IBM MarketScan Databases. Inverse probability weighting based on propensity score was employed to balance the ranolazine and traditional antianginals cohorts on patient clinical characteristics. Outcomes assessed were frequency and total cost of revascularization procedures over a 12-month follow-up. A total of 108,741 patients with SIHD were included. Of these, 18% initiated treatment with ranolazine, 21% received BBs, 24% received CCBs, and 37% were treated with LANs. Revascularization rates were significantly lower in ranolazine patients (11%) than in BB (16%) and LAN (14%) patients (both p <0.001), and more comparable to CCB patients (10%; p = 0.007). Compared with BB and LAN, those in the ranolazine cohort were less likely to have a revascularization procedure during hospitalization and had a shorter length of stay if hospitalized (all p <0.001). The mean healthcare costs associated with revascularization were lower in ranolazine patients ($2,933) than in BB ($4,465) and LAN ($3,609) patients (p <0.001), but similar to CCB patients ($2,753; p = 0.29). In conclusion, ranolazine treatment in patients with SIHD was associated with fewer revascularization procedures and lower associated healthcare costs compared with patients initiating BB or LAN, and comparable to patients initiating CCBs.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficAcy and safety of Trimetazidine in patients with angina pectoris having been treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (ATPCI study): Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics

BACKGROUND

About 30% of angina patients have persisting symptoms despite successful revascularization and antianginal therapy. Moreover, in stable patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve survival as compared with medical therapy alone. Trimetazidine, an antianginal agent devoid of hemodynamic effect, may help reducing symptoms and improving outcomes after PCI. The ATPCI study is investigating the efficacy and safety of adding trimetazidine to standard-of-care in angina patients who had a recent PCI.

METHODS

ATPCI is a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, event-driven study in patients with coronary artery disease having undergone PCI because of stable angina (elective PCI) or unstable angina/NSTEMI (urgent PCI). After PCI, patients were randomized to trimetazidine (35 mg bid) or placebo on top of standard-of-care including event prevention drugs and antianginal treatment. Patients will be followed for 2 to 4 years. The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of cardiac death, hospitalization for a cardiac event and recurrence or persistence of angina. Safety events related to trimetazidine use will be monitored.

RESULTS

Recruitment lasted from September 2014 to June 2016. A total of 6007 patients were enrolled (58% and 42% after elective and urgent PCI, respectively). Mean age was 61 years, 77% were males, and median durations of coronary artery disease were 1 and 5 months (if urgent or elective PCI, respectively). Almost all patients received drugs for event prevention and antianginal therapy at baseline.

CONCLUSION

The ATPCI study will shed further light on the management of contemporary angina patients after PCI. Results are expected in 2019.

Recent Advances in Understanding the Pathogenesis of Cardiovascular Diseases and Development of Treatment Modalities

Cardiovascular Diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The underlying pathology for cardiovascular disease is largely atherosclerotic in nature and the steps include fatty streak formation, plaque progression and plaque rupture. While there is optimal drug therapy available for patients with CVD, there are also underlying drug delivery obstacles that must be addressed. Challenges in drug delivery warrant further studies for the development of novel and more efficacious medical therapies. An extensive understanding of the molecular mechanisms of disease in combination with current challenges in drug delivery serves as a platform for the development of novel drug therapeutic targets for CVD. The objective of this article is to review the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, first-line medical treatment for CVD, and key obstacles in an efficient drug delivery.

Association of Beta-Blockers with Survival on Patients Presenting with ACS Treated with PCI: A Propensity Score Analysis from the BleeMACS Registry

PURPOSE

The aim was to evaluate prognostic value of beta-blocker (BB) administration in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients in the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The BleeMACS project is a multicenter, observational, retrospective registry enrolling patients with ACS worldwide in 15 hospitals. Patients discharged with BB therapy were compared to those discharged without a BB before and after propensity score with matching. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital reinfarction, in-hospital heart failure, 1-year myocardial infarction, 1-year bleeding and 1-year composite of death and recurrent myocardial infarction. After matching, 2935 patients for each group were enrolled. The primary endpoint of 1-year death was significantly lower in the group on BB therapy (4.5 vs 7%, p < 0.05), while only a trend was noted for recurrent acute myocardial infarction (4.5 vs 4.9%, p = 0.54). These results were consistent for patients older than 80 years of age, for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, and for those discharged with complete versus incomplete revascularization, but not for non-STEMI/unstable angina patients.

CONCLUSIONS

BB therapy was related to 1-year lower risk of all-cause mortality, independently from completeness of revascularization, admission diagnosis, age and ejection fraction. Randomized controlled trials for patients treated with PCI for ACS should be performed.