Effects of metoprolol CR in patients with ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathy : the randomized evaluation of strategies for left ventricular dysfunction pilot study

Pharmacotherapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), β-blockers (BBs), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are the cornerstones in treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) are included in HFrEF treatment guidelines. However, the effect of SGLT-2i and the five drugs on HFrEF have not yet been systematically evaluated.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception dates to September 23, 2022. Additional trials from previous relevant reviews and references were also included. The primary outcomes were changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter/dimension (LVEDD), left ventricular end-systolic diameter/dimension (LVESD), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI). Secondary outcomes were New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, 6-min walking distance (6MWD), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) level. The effect sizes were presented as the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

We included 68 RCTs involving 16,425 patients. Compared with placebo, ARNI + BB + MRA + SGLT-2i was the most effective combination to improve LVEF (15.63%, 95% CI: 9.91% to 21.68%). ARNI + BB + MRA + SGLT-2i (5.83%, 95% CI: 0.53% to 11.14%) and ARNI + BB + MRA (3.83%, 95% CI: 0.72% to 6.90%) were superior to the traditional golden triangle "ACEI + BB + MRA" in improving LVEF. ACEI + BB + MRA + SGLT-2i was better than ACEI + BB + MRA (-8.05 mL/m2, 95% CI: -14.88 to -1.23 mL/m2) and ACEI + BB + SGLT-2i (-18.94 mL/m2, 95% CI: -36.97 to -0.61 mL/m2) in improving LVEDVI. ACEI + BB + MRA + SGLT-2i (-3254.21 pg/mL, 95% CI: -6242.19 to -560.47 pg/mL) was superior to ARB + BB + MRA in reducing NT-proBNP.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding SGLT-2i to ARNI/ACEI + BB + MRA is beneficial for reversing cardiac remodeling. The new quadruple drug "ARNI + BB + MRA + SGLT-2i" is superior to the golden triangle "ACEI + BB + MRA" in improving LVEF.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO; No. CRD42022354792.

Modulation of cAMP/cGMP signaling as prevention of congenital heart defects in Pde2A deficient embryos: a matter of oxidative stress

Phosphodiesterase 2A (Pde2A) is a dual-specific PDE that breaks down both cAMP and cGMP cyclic nucleotides. We recently highlighted a direct relationship between Pde2A impairment, a consequent increase of cAMP, and the appearance of mouse congenital heart defects (CHDs). Here we aimed to characterize the pathways involved in the development of CHDs and in their prevention by pharmacological approaches targeting cAMP and cGMP signaling. Transcriptome analysis revealed a modulation of more than 500 genes affecting biological processes involved in the immune system, cardiomyocyte development and contractility, angiogenesis, transcription, and oxidative stress in hearts from Pde2A-/- embryos. Metoprolol and H89 pharmacological administration prevented heart dilatation and hypertabeculation in Pde2A-/- embryos. Metoprolol was also able to partially impede heart septum defect and oxidative stress at tissue and molecular levels. Amelioration of cardiac defects was also observed by using the antioxidant NAC, indicating oxidative stress as one of the molecular mechanisms underpinning the CHDs. In addition, Sildenafil treatment recovered cardiac defects suggesting the requirement of cAMP/cGMP nucleotides balance for the correct heart development.

Iron Deficiency in Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement from the Heart Failure Society of America

Iron deficiency is present in approximately 50% of patients with symptomatic heart failure and is independently associated with worse functional capacity, lower quality of, life and increased mortality. The purpose of this document is to summarize current knowledge of how iron deficiency is defined in heart failure and its epidemiology and pathophysiology, as well as pharmacological considerations for repletion strategies. This document also summarizes the rapidly expanding array of clinical trial evidence informing when, how, and in whom to consider iron repletion.

Left ventricular reverse remodelling and its predictors in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Adverse remodelling following an initial insult is the hallmark of heart failure (HF) development and progression. It is manifested as changes in size, shape, and function of the myocardium. While cardiac remodelling may be compensatory in the short term, further neurohumoral activation and haemodynamic overload drive this deleterious process that is associated with impaired prognosis. However, in some patients, the changes may be reversed. Left ventricular reverse remodelling (LVRR) is characterized as a decrease in chamber volume and normalization of shape associated with improvement in both systolic and diastolic function. LVRR might occur spontaneously or more often in response to therapeutic interventions that either remove the initial stressor or alleviate some of the mechanisms that contribute to further deterioration of the failing heart. Although the process of LVRR in patients with new‐onset HF may take up to 2 years after initiating treatment, there is a significant portion of patients who do not improve despite optimal therapy, which has serious clinical implications when considering treatment escalation towards more aggressive options. On the contrary, in patients that achieve delayed improvement in cardiac function and architecture, waiting might avoid untimely implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation. Therefore, prognostication of successful LVRR based on clinical, imaging, and biomarker predictors is of utmost importance. LVRR has a positive impact on prognosis. However, reverse remodelled hearts continue to have abnormal features. In fact, most of the molecular, cellular, interstitial, and genome expression abnormalities remain and a susceptibility to dysfunction redevelopment under biomechanical stress persists in most patients. Hence, a distinction should be made between reverse remodelling and true myocardial recovery. In this comprehensive review, current evidence on LVRR, its predictors, and implications on prognostication, with a specific focus on HF patients with non‐ischaemic cardiomyopathy, as well as on novel drugs, is presented.

Developments in Exercise Capacity Assessment in Heart Failure Clinical Trials and the Rationale for the Design of METEORIC-HF

Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a highly morbid condition for which exercise intolerance is a major manifestation. However, methods to assess exercise capacity in HFrEF vary widely in clinical practice and in trials. We describe advances in exercise capacity assessment in HFrEF and a comparative analysis of how various therapies available for HFrEF impact exercise capacity. Current guideline-directed medical therapy has indirect effects on cardiac performance with minimal impact on measured functional capacity. Omecamtiv mecarbil is a novel selective cardiac myosin activator that directly increases cardiac contractility and in a phase 3 cardiovascular outcomes study significantly reduced the primary composite end point of time to first heart failure event or cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF. The objective of the METEORIC-HF trial (Multicenter Exercise Tolerance Evaluation of Omecamtiv Mecarbil Related to Increased Contractility in Heart Failure) is to assess the effect of omecamtiv mecarbil versus placebo on multiple components of functional capacity in HFrEF. The primary end point is to test the effect of omecamtiv mecarbil compared with placebo on peak oxygen uptake as measured by cardiopulmonary exercise testing after 20 weeks of treatment. METEORIC-HF will provide state-of-the-art assessment of functional capacity by measuring ventilatory efficiency, circulatory power, ventilatory anaerobic threshold, oxygen uptake recovery kinetics, daily activity, and quality-of-life assessment. Thus, the METEORIC-HF trial will evaluate the potential impact of increased myocardial contractility with omecamtiv mecarbil on multiple important measures of functional capacity in ambulatory patients with symptomatic HFrEF. Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03759392.

Efficacy and Safety of Dapagliflozin in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction According to N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide: Insights From the DAPA-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Effective therapies for HFrEF usually reduce NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) levels, and it is important to establish whether new treatments are effective across the range of NT-proBNP.

METHODS

We evaluated both these questions in the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure) trial. Patients in New York Heart Association functional class II to IV with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and a NT-proBNP level ≥600 pg/mL (≥600 ng/L; ≥400 pg/mL if hospitalized for HF within the previous 12 months or ≥900 pg/mL if atrial fibrillation/flutter) were eligible. The primary outcome was the composite of an episode of worsening HF or cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

Of the 4744 randomized patients, 4742 had an available baseline NT-proBNP measurement (median, 1437 pg/mL [interquartile range, 857-2650 pg/mL]). Compared with placebo, treatment with dapagliflozin significantly reduced NT-proBNP from baseline to 8 months (absolute least-squares mean reduction, -303 pg/mL [95% CI, -457 to -150 pg/mL]; geometric mean ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.96]). Dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF or cardiovascular death, irrespective of baseline NT-proBNP quartile; the hazard ratio for dapagliflozin versus placebo, from lowest to highest quartile was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.27-0.67), 0.77 (0.56-1.04), 0.78 (0.60-1.01), and 0.78 (0.64-0.95); P for interaction=0.09. Consistent benefits were observed for all-cause mortality. Compared with placebo, dapagliflozin increased the proportion of patients with a meaningful improvement (≥5 points) in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score (P for interaction=0.99) and decreased the proportion with a deterioration ≥5 points (P for interaction=0.87) across baseline NT-proBNP quartiles.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HFrEF, dapagliflozin reduced NT-proBNP by 300 pg/mL after 8 months of treatment compared with placebo. In addition, dapagliflozin reduced the risk of worsening HF and death, and improved symptoms, across the spectrum of baseline NT-proBNP levels included in DAPA-HF. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Revisiting the clinical evidence of heart rate target in patients with heart failure treated with beta-blockers

Objective

On evaluating the guidelines from previous studies, we found no randomized controlled trials on the use of beta-blockers for heart failure (HF) that employed as evidence for heart rate targets of 60 or 70 beats/min. In this study, we aimed to assess the target heart rate in patients with HF treated with beta-blockers.

Methods

We used the keywords, “heart failure” and “beta-blocker” to search PubMed, Ovid, EMBASE, and Cochrane from 1966 to June 2021. Two authors independently reviewed the results of the search strategy and selected all the studies that reported the effect of beta-blockers on all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF. We conducted analyses using Review Manager, version 5.0 and Stata version 12.0. Risk of bias was assessed regarding randomization, allocation sequence concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, and other biases. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to compare the results of fixed effect model with the results of random effect.

Results

No clinical trial supported the optimal heart rate of 60 beats/min. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were 0.77 (0.71, 0.83) and 0.86 (0.76, 0.97) in the subgroup with a baseline heart rate >80 beats/min and subgroup with baseline of ≤80 beats/min, respectively. RR and 95% CI were 0.92 (0.82, 1.02) and 0.77 (0.65, 0.92) in 2 subgroups with heart rate controlled ≥70 beats/min and 60–70 beats/min, respectively. Accumulated to MOCHA 1 trial (heart rate controlled 70 beats/min), there was no significant difference in mortality between the experimental group and the control group (RR=0.91, 95% CI 0.82–1.02). Accumulated to SENIORS trial (heart rate controlled 68.8 beats/min), there was a difference in mortality between the experimental and the control groups (RR=0.90, 95% CI 0.82–0.99).

Conclusion

The main effect of beta-blockers in the treatment of HF is achieved by lowering heart rate. The use of beta-blockers did not benefit in people with HFrEF whose heart rate was 77 beats/min before they started the treatment regimen. In patients with HFrEF, the purpose of beta-blockers is to control the heart rate to 65–70 beats min.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); a review of the evidence is required to determine whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with HFpEF.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one clinical trial register on 14 May 2020 to identify eligible studies, with no language or date restrictions. We checked references from trial reports and review articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design, enrolling adults with HFpEF, defined by LVEF greater than 40%.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 randomised controlled trials (231 reports), totalling 23,492 participants across all comparisons. The risk of bias was frequently unclear and only five studies had a low risk of bias in all domains. Beta-blockers (BBs) We included 10 studies (3087 participants) investigating BBs. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 30 years to 81 years. A possible reduction in cardiovascular mortality was observed (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; three studies), however, the certainty of evidence was low. There may be little to no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.00; 1105 participants; four studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, and quality of life remain uncertain. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) We included 13 studies (4459 participants) investigating MRA. Eight studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.5 to 80 years. Pooled analysis indicated that MRA treatment probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB = 41; 3714 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MRA treatment probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; 4207 participants; five studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; 4070 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). MRA treatment may have little or no effect on quality of life measures (mean difference (MD) 0.84, 95% CI -2.30 to 3.98; 511 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). MRA treatment was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 11; 4291 participants; six studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) We included eight studies (2061 participants) investigating ACEIs. Three studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 70 to 82 years. Pooled analyses with moderate-certainty evidence suggest that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; 945 participants; two studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45; 1187 participants; five studies) and heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; 1019 participants; three studies), and may result in little or no effect on the quality of life (MD -0.09, 95% CI -3.66 to 3.48; 154 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on hyperkalaemia remain uncertain. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating ARBs were included. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in three the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 61 to 75 years. Pooled analyses with high certainty of evidence suggest that ARB treatment has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% 0.90 to 1.14; 7254 participants; three studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; 7964 participants; four studies), heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.02; 7254 participants; three studies), and quality of life (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.86 to 1.67; 3117 participants; three studies). ARB was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; two studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) Three studies (7702 participants) investigating ARNIs were included. Two studies used ARBs as the comparator and one used standardised medical therapy, based on participants' established treatments at enrolment. The mean age of participants ranged from 71 to 73 years. Results suggest that ARNIs may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 4796 participants; one study; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 7663 participants; three studies; high-certainty evidence), or quality of life (high-certainty evidence). However, ARNI treatment may result in a slight reduction in heart failure hospitalisation, compared to usual care (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7362 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). ARNI treatment was associated with a reduced risk of hyperkalaemia compared with valsartan (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 5054 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that MRA and ARNI treatment in HFpEF probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation but probably has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality and quality of life. BB treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality, however, further trials are needed. The current evidence for BBs, ACEIs, and ARBs is limited and does not support their use in HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication. Although MRAs and ARNIs are probably effective at reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalisation, the treatment effect sizes are modest. There is a need for improved approaches to patient stratification to identify the subgroup of patients who are most likely to benefit from MRAs and ARNIs, as well as for an improved understanding of disease biology, and for new therapeutic approaches.

Effect of Neprilysin Inhibition on Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients With Asymptomatic Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Late After Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction are at a high risk of developing heart failure. The addition of neprilysin inhibition to renin angiotensin system inhibition may result in greater attenuation of adverse LV remodeling as a result of increased levels of substrates for neprilysin with vasodilatory, antihypertrophic, antifibrotic, and sympatholytic effects.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily with valsartan 160 mg twice daily in patients ≥3 months after myocardial infarction with a LV ejection fraction ≤40% who were taking a renin angiotensin system inhibitor (equivalent dose of ramipril ≥2.5 mg twice daily) and a β-blocker unless contraindicated or intolerant. Patients in New York Heart Association class ≥II or with signs and symptoms of heart failure were excluded. The primary outcome was change from baseline to 52 weeks in LV end-systolic volume index measured using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary outcomes included other magnetic resonance imaging measurements of LV remodeling, change in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, and a patient global assessment of change questionnaire.

RESULTS

From July 2018 to June 2019, we randomized 93 patients with the following characteristics: mean age, 60.7±10.4 years; median time from myocardial infarction, 3.6 years (interquartile range, 1.2-7.2); mean LV ejection fraction, 36.8%±7.1%; and median NT-proBNP, 230 pg/mL (interquartile range, 124-404). Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, did not significantly reduce LV end-systolic volume index; adjusted between-group difference, -1.9 mL/m² (95% CI, -4.9 to 1.0); P=0.19. There were no significant between-group differences in NT-proBNP, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, LV end-diastolic volume index, left atrial volume index, LV ejection fraction, LV mass index, or patient global assessment of change.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with asymptomatic LV systolic dysfunction late after myocardial infarction, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant reverse remodeling effect compared with valsartan. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03552575.

Combination pharmacotherapies for cardiac reverse remodeling in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Pharmacotherapies, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs), β-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and angiotensin receptor blocker-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), have played a pivotal role in reducing in-hospital and mortality in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, effects of the five drug categories used alone or in combination for cardiac reverse remodeling (CRR) in these patients have not been systematically evaluated. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted based on 55 randomized controlled trials published between 1989 and 2019 involving 12,727 patients from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020170457). Our primary outcomes were CRR indicators, including changes of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and end-systolic volume (LVESV), indexed LVEDV (LVEDVI) and LVESV (LVESVI), and left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) and end-systolic dimension (LVESD); Secondary outcomes were functional capacity comprising New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and 6-min walking distance (6MWD); cardiac biomarkers involving B type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP). The effect sizes were presented as the mean difference with 95% credible intervals. According to the results, all dual-combination therapies except ACEI+ARB were significantly more associated with LVEF or NYHA improvement than placebo, ARB+BB and ARNI+BB were the top two effective dual-combinations in LVEF improvement (+7.59% [+4.27, +11.25] and +7.31% [+3.93, +10.97] respectively); ACEI+BB was shown to be superior to ACEI in reducing LVEDVI and LVESVI (-6.88 mL/m² [-13.18, -1.89] and -10.64 mL/m² [-18.73, -3.54] respectively); ARNI+BB showed superiority over ACEI+BB in decreasing the level of NT-proBNP (-240.11 pg/mL [-456.57, -6.73]). All tri-combinations were significantly more effective than placebo in LVEF improvement, and ARNI+BB+MRA ranked first (+21.13% [+14.34, +28.13]); ACEI+BB+MRA was significantly more associated with a decrease in LVEDD than ACEI (-6.57 mm [-13.10, -0.84]). A sensitivity analysis ignoring concomitant therapies for LVEF illustrated that all the five drug types except ARB were shown to be superior to placebo, and ARNI ranked first (+4.83% [+1.75, +7.99]). In conclusion, combination therapies exert more benefits on CRR for patients with HFrEF. Among them, ARNI+BB, ARB+BB, ARNI+BB+MRA and ARB+BB+MRA were the top two effective dual and triple combinations in LVEF improvement, respectively; The new "Golden Triangle" of ARNI+BB+MRA was shown to be superior to ACEI+BB+MRA or ARB+BB+MRA in LVEF improvement.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of infusion of bone marrow derived cell in patients with heart failure: A network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and cohort studies

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of bone marrow-derived cells (BMC) technology in patients with heart failure and compare it with alternative therapies, including drug therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker (CRT-P), cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D).

Methods: A systematic review study was conducted to identify all clinical studies published by 2017. Using keywords such as "Heart Failure, BMC, Drug Therapy, CRT-D, CRT-P" and combinations of the mentioned words, we searched electronic databases, including Scopus, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa. The primary and secondary end-points were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (%), failure cases (Number), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVES) (ml), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVED) (ml). Random-effects network meta-analyses were used to conduct a systematic comparison. Statistical analysis was done using STATA.

Results: This network meta-analysis covered a total of 57 final studies and 6694 patients. The Comparative effectiveness of BMC versus CRT-D, Drug, and CRT-P methods indicated the statistically significant superiority of BMC over CRT-P (6.607, 95% CI: 2.92, 10.29) in LVEF index and overall CRT-P (-13.946, 95% CI: -18.59, -9.29) and drug therapy (-4.176, 95% CI: -8.02, -.33) in LVES index. In addition, in terms of LVED index, the BMC had statistically significant differences with CRT-P (-10.187, 95% CI: -18.85, -1.52). BMC was also dominant to all methods in failure cases as a final outcome and the difference was statistically significant i.e. BMC vs CRT-D: 0.529 (0.45, 0.62) and BMC vs Drug: 0.516 (0.44, 0.60). In none of the outcomes, the other methods were statistically more efficacious than BMC. The BMC method was superior or similar to the other methods in all outcomes.

Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the BMC method, in general, and especially in terms of failure cases index, had a higher level of clinical effectiveness. However, due to the lack of data asymmetry, insufficient data and head-to-head studies, BMC in this meta-analysis might be considered as an alternative to existing treatments for heart failure.

A Modern History RAAS Inhibition and Beta Blockade for Heart Failure to Underscore the Non-equivalency of ACEIs and ARBs

Beta blockers and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-inhibitors (RAAS-i) including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been a mainstay of guideline-based medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) for decades. However, initial evidence supporting each of the aforenoted class of drug for heart failure indications was largely found independently of the other two classes with the exception of the addition of BBs to ACEIs. In the initial ACEI trials for HFrEF, few participants were on BBs as BBs were seen as contraindicated in HFrEF at the time. The seminal BB in HFrEF trials had high prevalence of ACEIs use as ACEIs for HF were standard of care by then, but ARBs as a class were still in their infancy. We closely examine the evidence for combinations of BB and ACEIs versus ARBs in HFrEF. In doing so, we demonstrate the lack of evidence for consideration of ARBs to be interchangeable with ACEIs when used in combination with BB and provide evidence that calls in to question the validity of assuming benefits from each drug class are independently cumulative, widening the gap between ACEIs and ARBs when used with BBs. Modern guidelines should emphasize this lack of evidence for the combination use of ARB and BB in HFrEF, except for candesartan. Even as practice moves towards the widespread uptake of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (which contain the ARB valsartan) in heart failure, the distinction has important implications for the ongoing role of combination therapy with BB, which thus far has been assumed, but not proven.

Mega-trials in heart failure: effects of dilution in examination of new therapies

AIMS

Over the last 30 years, many medicine development programmes in acute and chronic heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have failed, in contrast to those in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We explore how the neutral results in larger HF trials may be attributable to chance and/or the dilution of statistical power.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using simulations, we examined the probability that a positive finding in a Phase 2 trial would result in the study of a truly effective medicine in a Phase 3 trial. We assessed the similarity of clinical trial and registry patient populations. We conducted a meta-analysis of paired Phase 2 and 3 trials in HFrEF and acute HF examining the associations of trial phase and size with placebo event rates and treatment effects for HF events and death. We estimated loss in trial power attributable to dilution with increasing trial size. Appropriately powered Phase 3 trials should have yielded ∼35% positive results. Patient populations in Phase 3 trials are similar to those in Phase 2 trials but both differ substantially from the populations of 'real-life' registries. We observed decreasing placebo event rates and smaller treatment effects with increasing trial size, especially for HF events (and less so for mortality). This was more pronounced in trials in acute HF patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The selection of more positive Phase 2 trials for further development does not explain the failure of HFpEF and acute HF medicine development. Increasing sample size may lead to reduced event rates and smaller treatment effects, resulting in a high rate of neutral Phase 3 trials.

Sex-dependent changes in physical, mental, and quality of life outcomes in metoprolol-treated Chinese chronic heart failure patients

This study assessed sex differences in cardiac and motor functions, quality of life (QoL), and mental status in Chinese chronic heart failure (CHF) patients after metoprolol treatment.This single-center prospective study, conducted from February 2013 to April 2016, included CHF patients (men and women) with resting heart rate (HR) >80 beats/min using metoprolol continuous release tablets. Metoprolol-induced changes in cardiac and motor functions, QoL, and mental status at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months from baseline, within and between the sexes, were analyzed. Descriptive data were represented as counts, percentages, and mean ± standard deviation. Differences at various follow-up periods were compared using repeated measures one-way analysis of variance, followed by post hoc Dunnett's multiple comparison test. Statistical significance was considered at P < .05.Compared with men, women reported significantly higher systolic blood pressure (SBP) (122.28 ± 6.76 vs 125.47 ± 6.67 mm Hg, P < .05) and Veterans Specific Activity Questionnaire score (8.16 ± 0.98 vs 8.47 ± 0.89, P = .05) at 12 months. Men reported higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores for depression than women at 1 month (10.27 vs 8.83, P < .05) and for anxiety at 12 months (8.4 vs 7.72, P < .05). Metoprolol significantly decreased HR and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score in men (64.5 ± 3.13 and 53.7 ± 8.00) and women (65.38 ± 3.32 and 53.85 ± 8.42, respectively). Ejection fraction (%, men: 50.00 ± 4.45, women: 50.72 ± 4.09), cardiac index (L/min/m, men: 2.70 ± 0.25, women: 2.78 ± 0.23), 6-minute walk test distance (m, men: 414.41 ± 20.84, women: 420.34 ± 20.35), and short form-8 questionnaire scores (men: 52.05 ± 1.94, women: 52.19 ± 2.58) increased significantly in both the sexes (P < .001 for all) at 12 months. Copenhagen Burnout Inventory score significantly increased in men (mean score 62.43, P < .05).Metoprolol treatment improves cardiac and motor functions, QoL, and anxiety scores but causes greater depression and burnout in men and women. Sex was seen to affect mental status of CHF patients the most.

Relation between therapy-induced changes in natriuretic peptide levels and long-term therapeutic effects on mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction

AIMS

To assess whether natriuretic peptides (NPs) can be used to reliably predict long-term therapeutic effect on clinical outcomes for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

HFrEF intervention trials with mortality data were identified. Subsequently, we identified trials assessing therapy-induced changes in NPs. We assessed the correlation between the average short-term placebo-corrected drug or device effect on NPs and the longer-term therapeutic effect on clinical outcomes. Of 35 distinct therapies with an identifiable mortality result (n = 105 062 patients), 20 therapies had corresponding data on therapeutic effect on NPs. No correlation was observed between therapy-induced placebo-corrected change in brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and therapeutic effect on all-cause mortality (ACM) (Spearman r = -0.32, P = 0.18 and r = -0.20, P = 0.47, respectively). There was no correlation between therapy-induced placebo-corrected per cent change in NP and intervention effect on ACM or ACM-heart failure hospitalizations (r = -0.30, P = 0.11 and r = 0.10, P = 0.75, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term intervention-induced changes in NP levels are not reliable predictors of therapeutic long-term effect on mortality or morbidity outcomes for patients with HFrEF.

Age-dependent changes in cardiac performance, motor function, QoL, and mental status in metoprolol-treated chronic heart failure patients

No previous study reports the effect of age on cardiac performance, motor function and quality of life (QoL) in Chinese chronic heart failure (CHF) patients. This single-center, prospective study enrolled CHF patients with resting heart rate (RHR) > 80 bpm, who were treated with metoprolol and were followed up at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Changes in cardiac, motor, and QoL parameters between patients aged ≥60 years and those aged <60 years were compared at all time points. P < 0.05 was considered significant. A total of 154 patients were enrolled (median age: 66.39 years; 116 aged ≥60 years, 38 aged <60 years; 95% New York Heart Association class III-IV). RHR decreased significantly in both patient groups (P < 0.0001 for both groups). Patients aged ≥60 years had a significant improvement in both ejection fraction (EF) at 6 and 12 months and in cardiac index (CI) at 3, 6, and 12 months. However, no major difference was observed in motor function in both groups. Significantly higher SF-8 scores showed greater improvement in QoL in the <60 age group at 12 months (P = 0.0008). Metoprolol demonstrated improvement in cardiac performance, motor function, QoL, and anxiety with increase in depression and burnout in both genders; however, the findings were independent of age.

Dose-independent influence of metoprolol on cardiac and motor functions, QoL, and mental status in Chinese patients with CHF

Objective

The objective of the study was to evaluate the dose-related influence of metoprolol on cardiac performance, motor function, quality of life (QoL), and mental status in Chinese patients with chronic heart failure (CHF).

Patients and methods

This was a prospectively designed single-center study which enrolled CHF patients with resting heart rate (HR) >80 bpm belonging to the New York Heart Association (NYHA) III/IV functional classification. Patients were initiated with 12.5 mg of metoprolol, and every second week, the dose was escalated until the target HR level (60–70 bpm) was achieved during the follow-up at 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 12th months. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the doses administered: 47.5 mg (n=37) and 118.75 mg (n=74), respectively, for comparison in terms of change in cardiac function, motor function, QoL, and mental status.

Results

Among the 111 patients with CHF, no significant difference was shown between the two doses administered. Irrespective of the dose, the cardiac performance, motor function, QoL, and anxiety improved and there was an increase in depression, whereas the effect on burnout, calculated as Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), equally was insignificant throughout the 1-year follow-up period in both the CHF patient groups.

Conclusion

Lower dose of metoprolol (47.5 mg) is as effective as higher dose (118.75 mg) in Chinese population with CHF to improve the cardiac function, motor function, QoL, and mental status.

Randomised placebo-controlled trial of combination ACE inhibitor and beta-blocker therapy to prevent cardiomyopathy in children with Duchenne muscular dystrophy? (DMD Heart Protection Study): a protocol study

INTRODUCTION

Although cardiologists were 'late-comers' to the multidisciplinary team-contributing to the complex care of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), they now recognise the importance of systematic cardiac surveillance and timely therapy to prolonged survival in patients with DMD. Empirical deployment of cardioactive medications has already improved outcomes, but the evidence base for clinical decision making is weak. Fundamental questions remain as to whether prophylactic therapy is justified and convincingly superior to prompt deployment of the same therapies once left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is detected. Even if it were, at what age should therapy be introduced and with what specific drugs?

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We are conducting a multicentre, parallel group, randomised, placebo-controlled study of combination therapy with an ACE inhibitor (perindopril) and a beta-blocker (bisoprolol) in boys with DMD aged 5-13 years, with normal LV function by echocardiographic criteria at the time of recruitment. Boys are being followed-up for a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 5 years and undergo repeat assessments of LV function, heart rate and ECG, forced expiratory volume in the 1 s and forced vital capacity, adverse event reporting and quality of life at 6 monthly intervals.The primary outcome is change in LV function between active and placebo-treated participants over the course of the study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by 'NRES Committee East Midlands - Derby'. The results will be disseminated through manuscript publications, an international workshop and presentations to scientific meetings and parent forums.

TRANSLATIONAL ASPECTS

The study seeks to establish the evidence for prophylactic heart therapies for children with DMD, define the optimum age for their introduction and identify any safety concerns.

ARTICLE SUMMARY

The protocol describes the design of an ongoing multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled study to establish the evidence for the use of prophylactic heart therapies in children with DMD, define the optimum age for their introduction and identify any safety concerns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EudraCT2007-005932-10 and ISRCTN50395346; Pre-results.

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. There is uncertainty whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and a comprehensive review of the evidence is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trial registries on 25 July 2017 to identify eligible studies. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional studies. There were no language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design enrolling adult participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40 percent.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. The outcomes assessed included cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, all-cause mortality and quality of life. Risk ratios (RR) and, where possible, hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous data, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) were calculated. We contacted trialists where neccessary to obtain missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

37 randomised controlled trials (207 reports) were included across all comparisons with a total of 18,311 participants.Ten studies (3087 participants) investigating beta-blockers (BB) were included. A pooled analysis indicated a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (15% of participants in the intervention arm versus 19% in the control arm; RR 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; 3 studies). However, the quality of evidence was low and no effect on cardiovascular mortality was observed when the analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; 643 participants; 1 study). There was no effect on all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation or quality of life measures, however there is uncertainty about these effects given the limited evidence available.12 studies (4408 participants) investigating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) were included with the quality of evidence assessed as moderate. MRA treatment reduced heart failure hospitalisation (11% of participants in the intervention arm versus 14% in the control arm; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB 41; 3714 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence) however, little or no effect on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and quality of life measures was observed. MRA treatment was associated with a greater risk of hyperkalaemia (16% of participants in the intervention group versus 8% in the control group; RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; 4291 participants; 6 studies; high-quality evidence).Eight studies (2061 participants) investigating angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as moderate. The evidence suggested that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, or quality of life. Data for the effect of ACEI on hyperkalaemia were only available from one of the included studies.Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as high. The evidence suggested that treatment with ARB has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalisation, or quality of life. ARB was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalaemia (0.9% of participants in the intervention group versus 0.5% in the control group; RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; 2 studies; high-quality evidence).We identified a single ongoing placebo-controlled study investigating the effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that MRA treatment reduces heart failure hospitalisation in heart failure with preserverd ejection fraction, however the effects on mortality related outcomes and quality of life remain unclear. The available evidence for beta-blockers, ACEI, ARB and ARNI is limited and it remains uncertain whether these treatments have a role in the treatment of HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication for their use. This comprehensive review highlights a persistent gap in the evidence that is currently being addressed through several large ongoing clinical trials.

Developing Drugs for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: What Have We Learned From Clinical Trials?

There remains a large unmet need for new therapies in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In the early drug development phase, the therapeutic potential of a drug is not yet fully understood and trial endpoints other than mortality are needed to guide drug development decisions. While a true surrogate marker for mortality in heart failure (HF) remains elusive, the successes and failures of previous trials can reveal markers that support clinical Go/NoGo decisions.

Mechanisms contributing to cardiac remodelling

Cardiac remodelling is classified as physiological (in response to growth, exercise and pregnancy) or pathological (in response to inflammation, ischaemia, ischaemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury, biomechanical stress, excess neurohormonal activation and excess afterload). Physiological remodelling of the heart is characterized by a fine-tuned and orchestrated process of beneficial adaptations. Pathological cardiac remodelling is the process of structural and functional changes in the left ventricle (LV) in response to internal or external cardiovascular damage or influence by pathogenic risk factors, and is a precursor of clinical heart failure (HF). Pathological remodelling is associated with fibrosis, inflammation and cellular dysfunction (e.g. abnormal cardiomyocyte/non-cardiomyocyte interactions, oxidative stress, endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress, autophagy alterations, impairment of metabolism and signalling pathways), leading to HF. This review describes the key molecular and cellular responses involved in pathological cardiac remodelling.

Impaired chronotropic response to physical activities in heart failure patients

Background

While exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation has a beneficial effect on heart failure hospitalization and mortality, it is limited by the presence of chronotropic incompetence (CI) in some patients. This study explored the feasibility of using wearable devices to assess impaired chronotropic response in heart failure patients.

Methods

Forty patients with heart failure (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF: 44.6 ± 5.8; age: 54.4 ± 11.7) received ECG Holter and accelerometer to monitor heart rate (HR) and physical activities during symptom-limited treadmill exercise testing, 6-min hall walk (6MHW), and 24-h daily living. CI was defined as maximal HR during peak exercise testing failing to reach 70% of age-predicted maximal HR (APMHR, 220 – age). The correlation between HR and physical activities in Holter-accelerometer recording was analyzed.

Results

Of 40 enrolled patients, 26 were able to perform treadmill exercise testing. Based on exercise test reports, 13 (50%) of 26 patients did not achieve at least 70% of APMHR (CI patients). CI patients achieved a lower % APMHR (62.0 ± 6.3%) than non-CI patients who achieved 72.0 ± 1.2% of APMHR (P < 0.0001). When Holter-accelerometer recording was used to assess chronotropic response, the percent APMHR achieved during 6MHW and physical activities was significantly lower in CI patients than in non-CI patients. CI patients had a significantly shorter 6MHW distance and less physical activity intensity than non-CI patients.

Conclusion

The study found impaired chronotropic response in 50% of heart failure patients who took treadmill exercise testing. The wearable Holter-accelerometer recording could help to identify impaired chronotropic response to physical activities in heart failure patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02358603. Registered 16 May 2014.

Heart Failure with Myocardial Recovery - The Patient Whose Heart Failure Has Improved: What Next?

In an important number of heart failure (HF) patients substantial or complete myocardial recovery occurs. In the strictest sense, myocardial recovery is a return to both normal structure and function of the heart. HF patients with myocardial recovery or recovered ejection fraction (EF; HFrecEF) are a distinct population of HF patients with different underlying etiologies, demographics, comorbidities, response to therapies and outcomes compared to HF patients with persistent reduced (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Improvement of left ventricular EF has been systematically linked to improved quality of life, lower rehospitalization rates and mortality. However, mortality and morbidity in HFrecEF patients remain higher than in the normal population. Also, persistent abnormalities in biomarker and gene expression profiles in these patients lends weight to the hypothesis that pathological processes are ongoing. Currently, there remains a lack of data to guide the management of HFrecEF patients. This review will discuss specific characteristics, pathophysiology, clinical implications and future needs for HFrecEF.

Beta-blockers for hypertension

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).There was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.Total CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.

Thirty Years of Evidence on the Efficacy of Drug Treatments for Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Treatments that reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), β-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), have not been studied in a head-to-head fashion. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these drugs and their combinations regarding all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature review identified 57 randomized controlled trials published between 1987 and 2015, which were compared in terms of study and patient characteristics, baseline risk, outcome definitions, and the observed treatment effects. Despite differences identified in terms of study duration, New York Heart Association class, ejection fraction, and use of background digoxin, a network meta-analysis was considered feasible and all trials were analyzed simultaneously. The random-effects network meta-analysis suggested that the combination of ACEI+BB+MRA was associated with a 56% reduction in mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.44, 95% credible interval 0.26-0.66); ARNI+BB+MRA was associated with the greatest reduction in all-cause mortality versus placebo (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% credible interval 0.19-0.65). A sensitivity analysis that did not account for background therapy suggested that ARNI monotherapy is more efficacious than ACEI or ARB monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The network meta-analysis showed that treatment with ACEI, ARB, BB, MRA, and ARNI and their combinations were better than the treatment with placebo in reducing all-cause mortality, with the exception of ARB monotherapy and ARB plus ACEI. The combination of ARNI+BB+MRA resulted in the greatest mortality reduction.

A prospective study on the impact of heart rate control achieved with metoprolol on cardiac performance, motor function and quality of life in Chinese chronic heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

To prospectively evaluate the impact of metoprolol achieved heart rate (HR) on cardiac-motor function and quality of life (QoL) in chronic heart failure (CHF) patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Between February 2013 to April 2016, association of HR reduction with haemodynamic indices, motor function and QoL in CHF patients with HR>80bpm receiving metoprolol 23.75mg or 47.5mgq.d was studied. Overall, 154 patients (median age, 66.39years; males, n=101; females, n=53) were enrolled, whose average resting HR decreased significantly from baseline value of 82.72±6.73 to 69.38±3.57, 67.72±2.61, 66.50±3.14 and 64.86±3.21bpm in the 1st, 3rd, 6th and 12th months post metoprolol intervention, respectively (P<0.0001). Similarly, the ejection fraction (r=-0.6461, P<0.0001), cardiac output (r=-0.5238, P<0.0001), cardiac index (r=-0.5378, P<0.0001) and veterans specific activity questionnaire scores (r=-0.4088, P<0.0001) were significantly associated with the reduction in HR after 12months. The improvement in 6-min walk test was independent of HR reduction (P=0.005). Similarly, QoL as measured by short form-8 questionnaire (SF-8) but not Minnesota Living with Heart Failure was significantly improved at the 12th-month. However, this was not associated with the reductions in HR.

CONCLUSION

Metoprolol achieved HR control was associated with improvement in cardiac performance and motor function but not QoL in patients with CHF.

A Review of the External Validity of Clinical Trials with Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Beta-blockers (BBs) are the mainstay prognostic medication for all stages of chronic heart failure (CHF). There are many classes of BBs, each of which has varying levels of evidence to support its efficacy in CHF. However, most CHF patients have one or more comorbid conditions such as diabetes, renal impairment, and/or atrial fibrillation. Patient enrollment to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often excludes those with certain comorbidities, particularly if the symptoms are severe. Consequently, the extent to which evidence drawn from RCTs is generalizable to CHF patients has not been well described. Clinical guidelines also underrepresent this point by providing generic advice for all patients. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence to support the use of BBs in CHF patients with common comorbid conditions.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and the reference lists of reviews for RCTs, post hoc analyses, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses that report on use of BBs in CHF along with patient demographics and comorbidities.

RESULTS

In total, 38 studies from 28 RCTs were identified, which provided data on six BBs against placebo or head to head with another BB agent in ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathies. Several studies explored BBs in older patients. Female patients and non-Caucasian race were underrepresented in trials. End points were cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. Comorbid diabetes, renal impairment, or atrial fibrillation was detailed; however, no reference to disease spectrum or management goals as a focus could be seen in any of the studies. In this sense, enrollment may have limited more severe grades of these comorbidities.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs provide authoritative information for a spectrum of CHF presentations that support guidelines. RCTs may provide inadequate information for more heterogeneous CHF patient cohorts. Greater Phase IV research may be needed to fill this gap and inform guidelines for a more global patient population.

A meta-analysis of the effects of β-adrenergic blockers in chronic heart failure

Adrenergic β-blockers are drugs that bind to, but do not activate β-adrenergic receptors. Instead they block the actions of β-adrenergic agonists and are used for the treatment of various diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, hypertension, headache, migraines, stress, anxiety, prostate cancer, and heart failure. Several meta-analysis studies have shown that β-blockers improve the heart function and reduce the risks of cardiovascular events, rate of mortality, and sudden death through chronic heart failure (CHF) of patients. The present study identified results from recent meta-analyses of β-adrenergic blockers and their usefulness in CHF. Databases including Medline/Embase/Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and PubMed were searched for the periods May, 1985 to March, 2011 and June, 2013 to August, 2015, and a number of studies identified. Results of those studies showed that use of β-blockers was associated with decreased sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure. However, contradictory results have also been reported. The present meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of β-blockers on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure. The results showed that mortality was significantly reduced by β-blocker treatment prior to the surgery of heart failure patients. The results from the meta-analysis studies showed that β-blocker treatment in heart failure patients correlated with a significant decrease in long-term mortality, even in patients that meet one or more exclusion criteria of the MERIT-HF study. In summary, the findings of the current meta-analysis revealed beneficial effects different β-blockers have on patients with heart failure or related heart disease.

Established and Emerging Roles of Biomarkers in Heart Failure Clinical Trials

The role of circulating biomarkers in heart failure clinical trials has evolved in recent decades. Increasing evidence behind the use of natriuretic peptides, emergence of novel biomarkers, and increased emphasis on targeting therapies toward physiological basis of disease (so-called precision medicine) have all contributed to the continued expansion of biomarker use in heart failure clinical trials. We will explore the advantages and pitfalls encountered through the use of biomarkers in clinical trials as an inclusion criterion, toxicity marker, and end point. We will also review their role in providing insights into the mechanism of action of therapeutics and guiding therapy in the management of patients with heart failure.

Quality of life assessment in heart failure interventions: a 10-year (1996–2005) review

The increasing prevalence and poor prognosis associated with heart failure have prompted research to focus on improving quality of life (QoL) for heart failure patients. Research from 1996–2005 was systematically reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials that assessed QoL in heart failure. In 120 studies, 44 were medication trials; 19 surgical/procedural interventions; and 57 patient care/service delivery interventions. Studies were summarized in terms of aim, population, QoL measures used and QoL findings. Studies used 47 different measures of QoL-generic, health-related, condition-specific, domain-specific and utility measures. Most used a single QoL measure. In 87%, a condition specific QoL measure was used, with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire being the favoured assessment tool. The range of QoL measures in use poses challenges for development of cumulative knowledge. Although comparability across studies is important, this must be informed by the responsiveness of the instrument selected. As carried out in other cardiac groups, comparative evaluations of instrument responsiveness are needed in heart failure. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 14:589-607 © 2007 The European Society of Cardiology

The safety and tolerability of beta blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: is the current underutilization of this evidence-based therapy justified?

INTRODUCTION

Beta blockers are one of the cornerstones for treatment of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection fraction (HFRef), yet their use is often limited by adverse effects, either perceived or real. We performed a review of available data using PubMed.gov utilizing beta blocker, heart failure, reduced ejection fraction and safety as key words.

AREAS COVERED

Several well designed, large scale randomized clinical trials including CIBS-II (bisoprolol), MERIT-HF (metoprolol succinate), and Copernicus (carvedilol) among others, have been conducted in patients with HFRef and demonstrated an improvement in cardiac mortality and morbidity. Despite the preponderance of data supporting the use of beta blockers for patients HFRef, these medications remain underutilized and/or are often prescribed at lower than recommended dosages. Some of the reluctance to embrace beta blockade may be attributed to concern on the part of both the patient and prescriber about the non-cardiac adverse effects of this class of drugs. We have reviewed several recent reviews and meta-analyses of trials of beta blocker in heart failure which have conclusively demonstrated their tolerability in the populations studied.

EXPERT OPINION

In the final section of this paper we provide our opinions regarding initiating and optimizing beta blocker therapy for patients with HFRef.

Continuous Trastuzumab Therapy in Breast Cancer Patients With Asymptomatic Left Ventricular Dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant trastuzumab is a highly effective targeted treatment that improves survival for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. However, trastuzumab interruption is recommended for patients who develop treatment-induced cardiotoxicity (i.e., decline in left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], with or without symptoms) and can lead to an incomplete course of treatment. We studied the cardiac safety of continuous trastuzumab therapy among patients with asymptomatic declines in LVEF.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant trastuzumab at our institution between 2005 and 2010. Treatment-induced cardiotoxicity was defined by an absolute decrease in LVEF of ≥10% to below 55% or an absolute decrease of ≥16%. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between candidate risk factors and treatment-induced cardiotoxicity.

RESULTS

Among 573 patients, 92 (16%) developed treatment-induced cardiotoxicity. Trastuzumab was continued without interruption in 31 of 92 patients with treatment-induced cardiotoxicity—all were asymptomatic with LVEF of ≥50% at cardiotoxicity diagnosis with median LVEF of 53% (range, 50%-63%), and none developed heart failure during follow-up. Risk factors associated with treatment-induced cardiotoxicity included age (p = .011), anthracycline chemotherapy (p = .002), and lower pretrastuzumab LVEF (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Among patients who develop asymptomatic treatment-induced cardiotoxicity with LVEF of ≥50%, continuous trastuzumab therapy appears to be safe.

β-Blockers for the prevention of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

In many studies, beta-blockers have been shown to decrease sudden cardiac death (SCD) in heart failure patients; other studies reported mixed results. Recently, several large randomized control trials of beta blockers have been carried out. It became necessary to conduct a systematic review to provide an up-to-date synthesis of available data.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials examining the use of beta-blockers vs. placebo/control for the prevention of SCD in heart failure patients. We identified 30 trials, which randomized 24,779 patients to beta-blocker or placebo/control. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Eligible studies had to be randomized controlled trials and provide information on the incidence of sudden cardiac death in heart failure patients. Additional inclusion criteria included: treatment for >30 days and follow-up ≥ 3 months. Studies of patients <18 years, randomization to beta-blocker vs. an angiotensin converting enzyme (without placebo) and/or beta-blocker in both arms were excluded from the analysis. Pre-specified outcomes of interest included SCD, cardiovascular death (CVD), and all-cause mortality and were analyzed according to intention-to-treat.

Results

We found that beta-blockers are effective in the prevention of SCD [OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.62–0.77, P < 0.00001], cardiovascular death (CVD) [OR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64–0.79, P < 0.00001], and all-cause mortality [OR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.59–0.76, P < 0.00001]. Based on the study analysis, 43 patients must be treated with a beta-blocker to prevent one SCD, 26 patients to prevent one CVD and 21 patients to prevent all-cause mortality in one year.

Conclusion

Beta-blockers reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) by 31%, cardiovascular death (CVD) by 29% and all-cause mortality by 33%. These results confirm the mortality benefits of these drugs and they should be recommended to all patients similar to those included in the trials.

Review on natriuretic peptides: where we are, where we are going

BACKGROUND

Tremendous advances have been made in our understanding of the pathophysiology and treatment of congestive heart failure. However, diagnosis of the disease still remains difficult, even with a comprehensive physical examination. Symptoms such as dyspnea are nonspecific and insensitive indicators for heart failure, which can go largely undetected. Several studies have suggested the need for new diagnostic capabilities, especially with the increasing prevalence of heart failure in the US. The discovery of natriuretic peptides as diagnostic biomarkers has been one of the most critical advances for the management of heart failure. Both B-type natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide have the potential to diagnose heart failure, assess prognostic risk of rehospitalization and mortality, and even help guide treatment. Their relative cost-effectiveness and availability have also facilitated their acceptance into many emergency departments, clinics and in-patient units as standard care when evaluating patients with suspected heart failure. Our understanding of the natriuretic peptide system is still in its infancy, but natriuretic peptides have emerged as important diagnostic and prognostic tools that have generated interest in finding broader applications for their use.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to discuss the clinical approaches and future applications of natriuretic peptides in diagnosing and managing treatment of congestive heart failure.

METHOD

A comprehensive review of studies to assess the utility of natriuretic peptides for diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure and other conditions.

CONCLUSION

Natriuretic peptides are powerful tools to aid the physician in the diagnosis, prognosis and management of heart failure in both in-patient and out-patient settings. However, natriuretic peptides should be used as an adjunct test as many circumstances can also influence changes in natriuretic peptide levels.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of beta-blockers in heart failure: rationale and design

The Beta-Blockers in Heart Failure Collaborative Group (BB-HF) was formed to obtain and analyze individual patient data from the major randomized controlled trials of beta-blockers in heart failure. Even though beta-blockers are an established treatment for heart failure, uptake is still sub-optimal. Further, the balance of efficacy and safety remains uncertain for common groups including older persons, women, those with impaired renal function and diabetes. Our aim is to provide clinicians with a thorough and definitive evidence-based assessment of these agents. We have identified 11 large randomized trials of beta-blockers versus placebo in heart failure and plan to meta-analyze the data on an individual patient level. In total, these trials have enrolled 18,630 patients. Uniquely, the BB-HF group has secured access to the individual data for all of these trials, with the participation of key investigators and pharmaceutical companies.Our principal objectives include deriving an overall estimate of efficacy for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalization. Importantly, we propose a statistically-robust sub-group assessment according to age, gender, diabetes and other key factors; analyses which are only achievable using an individual patient data meta-analysis. Further, we aim to provide an assessment of economic benefit and develop a risk model for the prognosis of patients with chronic heart failure.This paper outlines inclusion criteria, search strategies, outcome measures and planned statistical analyses.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00832442.

Benefits of β blockers in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To clarify whether any particular β blocker is superior in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction or whether the benefits of these agents are mainly due to a class effect.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of efficacy of different β blockers in heart failure.

DATA SOURCES

CINAHL(1982-2011), Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials (-2011), Embase (1980-2011), Medline/PubMed (1966-2011), and Web of Science (1965-2011).

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials comparing β blockers with other β blockers or other treatments.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary endpoint was all cause death at the longest available follow-up, assessed with odds ratios and Bayesian random effect 95% credible intervals, with independent extraction by observers.

RESULTS

21 trials were included, focusing on atenolol, bisoprolol, bucindolol, carvedilol, metoprolol, and nebivolol. As expected, in the overall analysis, β blockers provided credible mortality benefits in comparison with placebo or standard treatment after a median of 12 months (odds ratio 0.69, 0.56 to 0.80). However, no obvious differences were found when comparing the different β blockers head to head for the risk of death, sudden cardiac death, death due to pump failure, or drug discontinuation. Accordingly, improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction were also similar irrespective of the individual study drug.

CONCLUSION

The benefits of β blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction seem to be mainly due to a class effect, as no statistical evidence from current trials supports the superiority of any single agent over the others.

How reliable are left ventricular ejection fraction cut offs assessed by echocardiography for clinical decision making in patients with heart failure?

We aimed to study the potential influence of the variability in the assessment of echocardiographically measured left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on indications for the implantation of internal cardioverter defibrillator and/or cardiac resynchronization devices in heart failure patients. TIME-CHF was a multicenter trial comparing NT-BNP versus symptom-guided therapy in patients aged ≥60 years. Patients had their LVEF assessed at the recruiting centre using visual assessment, the area-length or biplane Simpson's method. Echocardiographic data were transferred to the study core-lab for re-assessment. Re-assessment in the core-lab was done with biplane Simpson's method, and included an appraisal of image quality. 413 patients had the LVEF analyzed at the recruiting centre and at the core lab. Image quality was optimal in 191 and suboptimal in 222. Overall, the correlation between LVEF at the recruiting centres and at the core-lab was good, independent of image quality (R² = 0.62). However, when a LVEF ≤30 % or ≥30 % was used as a cut-off, about 20 % of all patients would have been re-assigned to having either a LVEF above or below the cut-off, this proportion was not significantly influenced by image quality. We conclude that correlation between LVEF assessed by different centres based on the same ultrasound data is good, regardless of image quality. However, one fifth of patients would have been re-assigned to a different category when using the clinically important cut-off of 30 %.

Blockade of β-adrenoceptors restores the GRK2-mediated adrenal α(2) -adrenoceptor-catecholamine production axis in heart failure

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Sympathetic nervous system (SNS) hyperactivity is characteristic of chronic heart failure (HF) and significantly worsens prognosis. The success of β-adrenoceptor antagonist (β-blockers) therapy in HF is primarily attributed to protection of the heart from the noxious effects of augmented catecholamine levels. β-Blockers have been shown to reduce SNS hyperactivity in HF, but the underlying molecular mechanisms are not understood. The GPCR kinase-2 (GRK2)-α(2) adrenoceptor-catecholamine production axis is up-regulated in the adrenal medulla during HF causing α(2) -adrenoceptor dysfunction and elevated catecholamine levels. Here, we sought to investigate if β-blocker treatment in HF could lower SNS activation by directly altering adrenal GRK2 levels.

EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

Four weeks after myocardial infarction-induced HF, adult rats were randomized to 10-week treatment with vehicle (HF/C) or bisoprolol (HF/B). Cardiac function and dimensions were measured. In heart and adrenal gland, GRK2 levels were assessed by RT-PCR and Western blotting and adrenoceptors studied with radioligand binding. Catecholamines and α(2) adrenoceptors in adrenal medulla chromaffin cell cultures were also measured.

KEY RESULTS

Bisoprolol treatment ameliorated HF-related adverse cardiac remodelling and reduced plasma catecholamine levels, compared with HF/C rats. Bisoprolol also attenuated adrenal GRK2 overexpression as observed in HF/C rats and increased α(2) adrenoceptor density. In cultures of adrenal medulla chromaffin cells from all study groups, bisoprolol reversed HF-related α(2) adrenoceptor dysfunction. This effect was reversed by GRK2 overexpression.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Blockade of β-adrenoceptors normalized the adrenal α(2) adrenoceptor-catecholamine production axis by reducing GRK2 levels. This effect may contribute significantly to the decrease of HF-related sympathetic overdrive by β-blockers.

β-Blockers in heart failure: benefits of β-blockers according to varying male proportions of study patients

BACKGROUND

In patients with heart failure (HF), b-blockers reduce mortality. It's not known whether the beneficial effects of the b-blockers were associated with the differing male proportions of study patients. It also remains to be clarified regarding the true beneficial effects of the 3 b-blockers recommended by the guideline on mortality in the real world.

HYPOTHESIS

The benefits of b-blockers in HF patients were sex-related different.

METHODS

Randomized, placebo controlled clinical trials were included if they evaluated the beneficial effects of the three b-blockers on mortality and on hospital admissions on an intention-to-treat basis, and lasted at least 3 months.

RESULTS

Twenty-eighty trials with 14,829 patients were included. The b-blockers significantly reduced all cause mortality by 29.6%, cardiac death by 29.8%, sudden death by 49.4%, respectively. The magnitude of benefits of b-blockers in HF patients was increased with the increased male proportion. A similar magnitude of reduction in all cause mortality was observed among the three b blockers. A trend toward to reduced cardiac death was observed among the three b blockers, but only in bisoprolol was this statistically different (RR, 0.72; 95%CI, [0.59-0.87]). Metoprolol was significantly superior to carvedilol (P = 0.008) or bisoprolol (P = 0.034) in reduced sudden death.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HF, the 3 commonly used b-blockers significantly reduced mortality. Greater benefits of b-blockers were observed in the higher male proportion studies. The metoprolol was significantly superior to carvedilol or bisoprolol in reduced sudden death. Additional trials are required to determine whether the benefits of b-blockers will be observed in female HF patients.