Role of Metoprolol Succinate in the Treatment of Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review

Amiodarone vs. metoprolol succinate in HFrEF complicated with persistent atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response: A prospective observational study

Background

β-blockers have been recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF), but studies have shown that β-blockers do not reduce all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality in patients with HF and AF.

Objective

To investigate the difference in efficacy between oral amiodarone and metoprolol succinate for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and persistent atrial fibrillation (pAF) with rapid ventricular response (RVR).

Methods

Patients with HFrEF complicated with pAF with RVR treated in the People's Hospital of Chongqing Hechuan between March 2018 and March 2019 were enrolled in this prospective observational study. The primary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and the first hospitalization for HF rate. The secondary outcomes were type B pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) before/after treatment, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) before/after treatment, average heart rate (AhR), and the rate of sinus rhythm after 1 year of follow-up.

Results

A total of 242 patients with HFrEF complicated with pAF with RVR were enrolled and divided into amiodarone + perindopril + spironolactone+ routine drug (amiodarone group, n = 121) and metoprolol succinate + perindopril + spironolactone +routine drug (metoprolol succinate group, n = 121) according to their treatment strategy. Cardiovascular mortality (4.9 vs. 12.4%, HR: 2.500, 95%CI: 1.002-6.237, P = 0.040) and first hospitalization for HF (52.9 vs. 67.8%, HR: 1.281, 95%CI: 1.033-1.589, P = 0.024) were significantly lower in the amiodarone group than in the metoprolol group. The mean ventricular rate in the amiodarone group was significantly lower than in the metoprolol group (64.5 ± 3.2 vs. 72.4 ± 4.2, P < 0.001). After 1 year of follow-up, the sinus rhythm rate was significantly higher in the amiodarone group than in the metoprolol group (38.8 vs. 7.4%, HR: 0.191, 95%CI: 0.098-0.374, P < 0.001). The difference in proBNP (3,914.88 vs. 2,558.07, P < 0.001) and LVEF (-6.89 vs. -0.98, P < 0.001) before and after treatment was significantly higher in the amiodarone group than in the metoprolol group.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in this prospective observational study, the amiodarone group had lower risk of cardiovascular death and the first hospitalization for HF than metoprolol in HFrEF and persistent atrial fibrillation (pAF) with RVR. The mechanism may be related to improved cardiac function, rhythm control and ventricular rate control.

Registration number

ChiCTR2200057816; Registered 7 March 2022-Retrospectively registered: http://www.medresman.org.cn/pub/cn/proj/projectshshow.aspx?proj=4222.

Perspective on the role of four beta-blockers in heart failure

BACKGROUND

The current recommendations of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and a previous Bayesian analysis clearly show a mortality benefit with the use of β- blockers in chronic HF, especially for bisoprolol, carvedilol, and sustained-release metoprolol succinate.

OBJECTIVE

The main objective was to report the evidence on the use of the afore-mentioned β-blockers in subjects with heart failure and to characterize the stages of heart failure in response to the four different β-blockers. Furthermore, it shed light on the patient's satisfaction and improved quality of life using the afore-mentioned β-blockers in subjects with heart failure.

METHOD

The current perspective presented the clinical outcomes, including hospitalization, morbidity, mortality, patient's satisfaction, and quality of life, of four beta (β)-blockers, namely bisoprolol, carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, and nebivolol in different stages of heart failure.

RESULTS

The use of these three agents should be recommended for all stable subjects with current or previous symptoms of heart failure and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction unless there is any contraindication. The fore-mentioned β-blockers (bisoprolol, carvedilol, and metoprolol succinate) can be initiated early, even in stable and symptom-free (at rest) subjects with heart failure. β-blockers in heart failure should be commenced at small doses and then titrated upward as tolerated to achieve the desired clinical effects on heart rate and symptom control.

CONCLUSION

Cardiologists should weigh the benefit-risk in subjects with heart failure and other co-existing cardiovascular problems such as atrial fibrillation and diabetes.