Early initiation of oral beta-blocker improves long-term survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing for the initiation of oral beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction (MI) remains unclear within the context of current primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 412 consecutive patients admitted with a diagnosis of acute MI between January 2007 and August 2016 who underwent successful primary PCI and were given oral carvedilol during hospitalization. Early and late carvedilol groups were based on initiation within the first 24 h or after. Propensity score matching (1:1) incorporating 21 baseline characteristics yielded 47 matched pairs. Timing of carvedilol initiation was evaluated in relation to patient outcomes including time to all-cause mortality, using Kaplan-Meier estimates on the matched cohort and additional confirmation in multivariable regression analysis among the entire cohort.

RESULTS

Median follow-up period was 828 days. All-cause death occurred in 14 patients (4.7%) and 18 patients (15.8%) of the early and late carvedilol groups. After propensity score matching, initiation of oral carvedilol within the first 24 h was associated with lower all-cause mortality (6.4% vs. 25.5%, hazard ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.06 - 0.89, p = 0.036), as well as lower in-hospital mortality (0 vs. 14.9%, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

These results provide evidence that initiation of oral carvedilol within the first 24 h reduces the risk of long-term mortality, in acute MI patients who underwent primary PCI, supporting current guidelines recommendation.

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

BACKGROUND

Beta-blocker therapy, a treatment burdened by side effects including fatigue, erectile dysfunction and depression, was shown to reduce mortality and cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the pre-coronary reperfusion era. Potential mechanisms include protection from ventricular arrhythmias, increased ischaemia threshold and prevention of left ventricular (LV) adverse remodelling. With the advent of early mechanical reperfusion and contemporary pharmacologic secondary prevention, the benefit of beta-blockers after ACS in the absence of LV dysfunction has been challenged.

METHODS

The present narrative review discusses the contemporary evidence based on searching the PubMed database and references in identified articles.

RESULTS

Recently, the REDUCE-AMI trial-the first adequately powered randomized trial in the reperfusion era to test beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)-showed no benefit on the composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction over a median 3.5-year follow-up. While the benefit of beta-blockers in patients with reduced LVEF remains undisputed, their value in post-ACS patients with mildly reduced systolic function (LVEF 41%-49%) has not been studied in contemporary randomized trials; in this setting, observational studies have suggested a reduction in cardiovascular events with these agents. The adequate duration of beta-blocker therapy remains unknown, but observational data suggests that any mortality benefit may be lost beyond 1-12 months after ACS in patients with LVEF >40%.

CONCLUSION

We believe that there is sufficient evidence to abandon routine beta-blocker prescription in post-ACS patients with preserved LV systolic function.

Prognostic impact of heart failure admission in survivors of acute myocardial infarction

AIMS

The incidence and prognosis of symptomatic heart failure following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the primary percutaneous coronary intervention era have rarely been reported in the literature. This study aimed to (i) determine the incidence of heart failure admission among AMI survivors, (ii) compare 1 year outcomes between patients with heart failure admission and those without, and (iii) identify the independent risk factors associated with heart failure admission.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Japan Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry is a prospective multicentre registry from which data on consecutively enrolled patients with AMI from 50 institutions between 2015 and 2017 were obtained. Among the 3411 patients enrolled, 3226 who survived until discharge were included in this study. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal cerebral infarction) and major bleeding events corresponding to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Type 3 or 5. Clinical outcomes were compared between the patients who were and were not admitted for heart failure. Over a median follow-up of 12 months, 124 patients (3.8%) were admitted due to heart failure. Independent risk factors for heart failure admission included older age, female sex, Killip class ≥2 on admission, left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, estimated glomerular filtration rate ≤30 mL/min/1.73 m2, a history of malignancy, and non-use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors at discharge. The cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the heart failure admission group than in the no heart failure admission group (11.3% vs. 2.5%, P < 0.001). The rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (16.9% vs. 2.7%, P < 0.001) and major bleeding (6.5% vs. 1.6%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the heart failure admission group. Heart failure admission was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality, even after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.41, 95% confidence interval: 1.33-4.39, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Utilizing real-world data of the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention era from the Japan Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry database, this study demonstrates that the heart failure admission of AMI survivors was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality rates.

The Danish-Norwegian randomized trial on beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction: Design, rationale, and baseline characteristics

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The evidence for beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction (MI) is randomized trials conducted more than 30 years ago, and the continued efficacy has been questioned.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The ongoing Danish (DANBLOCK) and Norwegian (BETAMI) randomized beta-blocker trials are joined to evaluate the effectiveness and risks of long-term beta-blocker therapy after MI. Patients with normal or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 40%) will be randomized to open-label treatment with beta-blockers or no such therapy. The event-driven trial will randomize ∼5700 patients and continue until 950 primary endpoints have occurred. As of July 2023, 5228 patients have been randomized. Of the first 4000 patients randomized, median age was 62 years, 79% were men, 48% had a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and 84% had a normal LVEF. The primary endpoint is a composite of adjudicated recurrent MI, incident heart failure (HF), coronary revascularization, ischaemic stroke, all-cause mortality, malignant ventricular arrhythmia, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. The primary safety endpoint includes a composite of recurrent MI, HF, all-cause mortality, malignant ventricular arrhythmia, or resuscitated cardiac arrest 30 days after randomization. Secondary endpoints include each of the components of the primary endpoint, patient-reported outcomes, and other clinical outcomes linked to beta-blocker therapy. The primary analysis will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. End of follow-up is expected in December 2024.

CONCLUSION

The combined BETAMI-DANBLOCK trial will have the potential to affect current clinical practice for beta-blocker therapy in patients with normal or mildly reduced LVEF after MI.

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.).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Prediction of SYNTAX score II improvement by adding temporal heart rate changes between discharge and first outpatient visit in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

The prognostic ability of the temporal changes in resting heart rate (ΔHR) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) for cardiovascular (CV) mortality and clinical outcomes is rarely examined. This study investigated the predictive value of ΔHR using models with SYNTAX score II (SxS-II) for the long-term prognosis of patients with AMI.

Methods

Six hundred five AMI patients with vital signs recorded at the first outpatient visit (2–4 weeks after discharge) were retrospectively recruited into this study. The changes between discharge and outpatient resting heart rate (D-O ΔHR) were calculated by subtracting the HR at the first post-discharge visit from the value recorded at discharge. The major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) include cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, and nonfatal stroke. The predictive values and reclassification ability of the different models were assessed using a likelihood ratio test, Akaike’s information criteria (AIC), receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).

Results

During the follow-up period, a drop-in resting heart rate (RHR) from discharge to first outpatient visit was independently associated with less risk of CV mortality [D-O ΔHR: hazards ratio (HR) = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96–0.99, P < 0.001] and MACCE (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97–0.99, p = 0.001). The likelihood test indicated that the combined model of SxS-II and D-O ΔHR yielded the lowest AIC for CV mortality and MACCE (P < 0.001). Moreover, D-O ΔHR alone significantly improved the net reclassification and integrated discrimination of the models containing SxS-II for CV mortality and MACCE (CV mortality: NRI = 0.5600, P = 0.001 and IDI = 0.0759, P = 0.03; MACCE: NRI = 0.2231, P < 0.05 and IDI = 0.0107, P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The change in D-O ΔHR was an independent predictor of long-term CV mortality and MACCE. The D-O ΔHR combined with SxS-II could significantly improve its predictive probability.

Prognostic impact of secondary prevention medical therapy following myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries: a Bayesian and frequentist meta-analysis

AIMS

Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is a clinical entity with several causes and pathophysiologic mechanisms. Secondary prevention with medical therapy used in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease has unclear benefits in MINOCA patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A literature search was conducted until 8 March 2022. Random-effect frequentist and hierarchical Bayesian meta-analyses were performed to assess the clinical impact of medical therapy [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, statins, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), β-blockers] in MINOCA patients. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A total of 12 663 MINOCA patients among five observational studies were analysed. The mean follow-up ranged from 12 to 90 months across studies. In frequentist meta-analysis, statins and β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality [pooled adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) 0.53 and 0.81, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (0.37-0.76) and (0.67-0.97), respectively]. Only RAAS inhibitors were associated with a lower risk of MACE [pooled aHR: 0.69, with 95% CI (0.53-0.90)]. Bayesian meta-analysis based on informative prior assumptions offered strong evidence only for the benefit of statins on decreasing the risk of all-cause death [Bayes factor (BF): 33.2] and moderate evidence for the benefit of RAAS inhibitors on decreasing the risk of MACE (BF: 9); assigning less informative prior distributions did not affect the results, yet it downgraded the level of evidence to anecdotal.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, statins and RAAS inhibitors were consistently associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and MACE, respectively, in patients with MINOCA. Neutral prognostic evidence was demonstrated for β-blockers and DAPT.

Association of the medical therapy with beta-blockers or inhibitors of renin-angiotensin system with clinical outcomes in patients with mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction

In the era of the initial optimal interventional and medical therapy for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), a number of patients with mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (41%-49%) have been increasing. This observational study aimed to investigate the association between the medical therapy with oral beta-blockers or inhibitors of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and 2-year clinical outcomes in patients with mildly reduced EF after AMI. Among patients enrolled in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health, propensity-score matched patients who survived the initial attack and had mildly reduced EF were selected according to beta-blocker or RAS inhibitor therapy at discharge. Beta-blocker therapy at discharge was associated with lower 2-year major adverse cardiac events which was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, revascularization and re-hospitalization due to heart failure (8.7 vs 12.8/100 patient-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.93; P = .015), and no significant interaction between EF ≤ 45% and > 45% was observed (Pinteraction = 0.354). This association was mainly driven by lower myocardial infarction in patients with beta-blockers (HR 0.50; 95% CI 0.26-0.95; P = .035). Inhibitors of RAS at discharge were associated with lower re-hospitalization due to heart failure (1.8 vs 3.5/100 patient-years; HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.86; P = .010) without a significant interaction between EF ≤ 45% and > 45% (Pinteraction = 0.333). In patients with mildly reduced EF after AMI, the medical therapy with beta-blockers or RAS inhibitors at discharge was associated with better 2-year clinical outcomes.

Multimorbidity and combined interventions for patients with coronary heart disease in Chinese population: Latent class analysis of a multi-center study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to explore the profile of multimorbidity phenotype clusters and their discrepancy in mortality and the efficiency of combined interventions on blood pressure, glucose and lipid in each cluster.

METHODS

Fine and Gray competing risk regression models and Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess the association between multimorbidity and mortality and rehospitalization. Fine and Gray competing risk regression models and subgroup analyses were used to estimate the relations between combined interventions and mortality.

RESULTS

Three distinct multimorbidity clusters were observed: Class 1 named severe class, Class 2 termed moderate class, and Class 3 named mild class. Competing risk regression models revealed that patients in Class 1 have the greatest burden of mortality and rehospitalization compared to Class 3 after confounder adjustment, with HRs 1.43 (95% CI 1.30-1.56, P < 0.001) and 2.97 (95% CI 2.74-3.21, P < 0.001), respectively. The patients in Class 2 have moderate risk of mortality and rehospitalization compared to Class 3 after confounder adjustment, with HRs 1.41 (95% CI 1.30-1.52, P < 0.001) and 2.39 (95% CI 2.23-2.56, P < 0.001), respectively. Furthermore, we found that combined interventions on blood pressure, glucose and lipid simultaneously could further benefit on survival compared to each individual intervention or two in combine.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that multimorbidity among patients with CHD was common and increased the risks of death and rehospitalization. Three multimorbidity clusters that were significantly associated with death and rehospitalization were identified. Simultaneous intervention on blood pressure, glucose and lipid level may further benefit CHD patient in survival.

Prognostic impacts of β-blockers in acute coronary syndrome patients without heart failure treated by percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The use of β-blockers for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients without heart failure (HF) is controversial, and lacks of evidence in the era of reperfusion and intensive secondary preventions. This study aimed to investigate the prognostic impacts of β-blockers on patients with ACS but no HF treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

A total of 2397 consecutive patients with ACS but no HF treated by PCI were retrospectively recruited from January 2010 to June 2017. Univariable Cox regression was used to assess the prognostic impacts of β-blockers, followed by adjusted analysis, one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM), and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, in order to control for systemic between-group differences. The primary outcome was all-cause death.

RESULTS

Among the included patients, 2060 (85.9%) were prescribed with β-blockers at discharge. The median follow-up time was 727 (433-2016) days, with 55 (2.3%) cases of all-cause death. Unadjusted analysis showed that the use of β-blockers was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23-0.76, P = 0.004), which was sustained in adjusted analysis (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29-0.98, P = 0.044), PSM analysis (HR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.20-0.96, P = 0.039) and IPTW analysis (HR: 0.49. 95% CI: 0.35-0.70, P < 0.001). Risk reduction was also seen in β-blocker users for cardiac death, but not for major adverse cardiovascular events.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of β-blockers was associated with reduced long-term mortality for ACS-PCI patients without HF.

Pharmacotherapy for acute myocardial infarction

Clinical practice guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association provide recommendations based on evidence, including randomized controlled trials and registry data, for clinicians to enable efficient clinical decision-making and improve prognosis for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, there are several differences in practice, health systems, and races between Korea and Western countries; further, many studies on pharmacotherapy were conducted in the prepercutaneous coronary intervention era. An expert consensus document on pharmacotherapy for AMI was recently published following demands for the establishment of Korean guideline reflecting data in the modern percutaneous coronary intervention era. In this review, we summarized AMI guidelines from Europe, America, Japan, and Korea, and analyzed studies on pharmacotherapy for AMI including well-organized randomized controlled trials by Korean researchers and large-sized registry datasets, such as the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry and the Korean National Health Insurance Service.

Beta-Blocker and Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitor Combination Therapy in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Prediabetes or Diabetes Who Underwent Successful Implantation of Newer-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents: A Retrospective Observational Registry Study

Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and prediabetes or diabetes who received ß-blockers (BB) and renin–angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI) therapy after successful newer-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation are limited. We compared the two-year clinical outcomes in such patients. A total of 9466 patients with AMI in the Korea AMI Registry were classified into six groups according to their glycemic status and presence or absence of BB + RASI therapy: normoglycemia and BB + RASI users (n = 2217) or nonusers (n = 243), prediabetes and BB + RASI users (n = 2601) or nonusers (n = 306), and diabetes and BB + RASI users (n = 3682) or nonusers (n = 417). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (Re-MI), or any repeat revascularization, and the secondary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF). In patients with BB + RASI, despite similar primary and secondary clinical points between the prediabetes and diabetes groups, the cumulative incidence of Re-MI (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.660; 95% confidence interval: 1.000–2.755; p = 0.020) was higher in the diabetes group than in the prediabetes group. In all three different glycemic groups, BB + RASI users showed reduced MACEs, cardiac death, and HHF compared to those of BB + RASI nonusers. In this retrospective observational registry study, BB + RASI therapy showed comparable clinical outcomes except for Re-MI between prediabetes and diabetes in patients with AMI during a two-year follow-up period.

Effects of a Secondary Prevention Combination Therapy with beta-Blocker and Statin on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients

BACKGROUND The efficacy of a beta-blocker or statin alone versus combination therapy is uncertain. We compared the effects of a combination of beta-blocker and statin with those of one-drug therapies with regard to the occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). MATERIAL AND METHODS From 2011 to 2013, 636 ACS patients were included. Based on their risk category, enrolled subjects were assigned into 4 groups receiving consistent beta-blocker and/or statin treatment: no therapy group (n=139), with never use or inconsistent use beta-blocker and statin; beta-blocker monotherapy group (n=71); statin monotherapy group (n=149); and cotherapy group (n=277). RESULTS Men composed 66.8% of the cohort, which had a mean age of 60.42±9.83 years. Compared with the no therapy group, the statin monotherapy group and cotherapy group had a lower risk of MACE (statin monotherapy group: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.60, P<.001; cotherapy group: adjusted HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.28, P<.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that, compared with beta-blocker monotherapy and statin monotherapy, cotherapy significantly reduced the risks of MACE occurrences in ACS patients (beta-blocker monotherapy group: adjusted HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13-0.59, P=.001; statin monotherapy group: adjusted HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-0.98, P=.044). CONCLUSIONS Beta-blocker and statin combination therapy lowered the risk of developing MACE in ACS patients.