Effects of β-Blockers With and Without Vasodilating Properties on Central Blood Pressure

Intracranial aneurysm stiffness assessment using 4D Flow MRI

BACKGROUND

Although arterial stiffness is known as a biomarker for cardiovascular events and stroke, there is limited information in the literature regarding the stiffness of intracranial aneurysms. In this study, we aim to assess the stiffness of intracranial aneurysms using 4D Flow MRI.

METHODS

A total of 27 aneurysms in 25 patients with internal carotid artery aneurysms were included in this study. Using 4D Flow MRI, we measured the arterial pulse wave form during a cardiac cycle at planes proximal and distal to the target aneurysm. The damping of these waveforms through the aneurysm was defined as the aneurysm damping index (ADI) and compared to the contralateral side. We also investigated the clinical factors related to the ADI.

RESULTS

ADI assessment was successful in all cases. The average ADI was 1.18±0.28, which was significantly larger than 1.0 (P = 0.0027 [t-test]). The ADI on the aneurysm side was larger than on the contralateral side (1.19±0.30 vs 1.05±0.17, P = 0.029 [t-test]). On multivariate analysis, the use of beta-blockers (β=0.46, P = 0.015) and smoking history (β=-0.22, P = 0.024) showed a significant correlation with ADI.

CONCLUSION

We have proposed a novel method to observe arterial pulse wave dumping through intracranial aneurysm using 4D Flow MRI. The damping can be quantitatively observed, and the ADI has correlations with clinical factors such as antihypertensive drugs and smoking. Further studies should focus more on evaluating aneurysm stiffness and its clinical applications.

Rationale for the Inclusion of β-Blockers Among Major Antihypertensive Drugs in the 2023 European Society of Hypertension Guidelines

We address the reasons why, unlike other guidelines, in the 2023 guidelines of the European Society of Hypertension β-blockers (BBs) have been regarded as major drugs for the treatment of hypertension, at the same level as diuretics, calcium channel blockers, and blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. We argue that BBs, (1) reduce blood pressure (the main factor responsible for treatment-related protection) not less than other drugs, (2) reduce pooled cardiovascular outcomes and mortality in placebo-controlled trials, in which there has also been a sizeable reduction of all major cause-specific cardiovascular outcomes, (3) have been associated with a lower global cardiovascular protection in 2 but not in several other comparison trials, in which the protective effect of BBs versus the other major drugs has been similar or even greater, with a slightly smaller or no difference of global benefit in large trial meta-analyses and a similar protective effect when comparisons extend to BBs in combination versus other drug combinations. We mention the large number of cardiac and other comorbidities for which BBs are elective drugs, and we express criticism against the exclusion of BBs because of their lower protective effect against stroke in comparison trials, because, for still uncertain reasons, differences in protection against cause-specific events (stroke, heart failure, and coronary disease) have been reported for other major drugs. These partial data cannot replace global benefits as the main deciding factor for drug choice, also because in the general hypertensive population whether and which type of event might occur is unknown.

Diverse pharmacological properties, trial results, comorbidity prescribing and neural pathophysiology suggest European hypertension guideline downgrading of beta-blockers is not justified

Beta-blockers have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications in the treatment of hypertension; atenolol, metoprolol, oxprenolol and propranolol demonstrate proven cardiovascular prevention in hypertension mega-trials. Hypertension is characterised by activation of the sympathetic nervous system from early to late phases, which makes beta-blockers an appropriate treatment seen from a pathophysiological viewpoint, especially in patients with an elevated heart rate. Beta-blockers represent a heterogenous class of drugs with regard to both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. This position is manifest by reference to another clinical context, beta-blocker treatment of heart failure, where unequivocally there is no class effect (no similar benefit from all beta-blockers); there are good and less good beta-blockers for heart failure. Analogous differences in beta-blocker efficacy is also likely in hypertension. Beta-blockers are widely used for the treatment of diseases comorbid with hypertension, in approximately 50 different concomitant medical conditions that are frequent in patients with hypertension, leading to many de facto beta-blocker first choices in clinical practice. Thus, beta-blockers should be regarded as relevant first choices for hypertension in clinical practice, particularly if characterised by a long half-life, highly selective beta-1 blocking activity and no intrinsic agonist properties.SUMMARYBeta-blockers have solid documentation in preventing cardiovascular complications in the treatment of hypertension; atenolol, metoprolol, oxprenolol and propranolol demonstrate proven cardiovascular prevention in hypertension mega-trialsHypertension is characterised by activation of the sympathetic nervous system from early to late phases, which makes beta-blockers an appropriate treatment seen from a pathophysiological viewpoint, especially in patients with an elevated heart rateBeta-blockers represent a heterogenous class of drugs with regard to both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic propertiesThis position is manifest by reference to another clinical context, beta-blocker treatment of heart failure, where unequivocally there is no class effect (no similar benefit from all beta-blockers); there are good and less good beta-blockers for heart failureAnalogous differences in beta-blocker efficacy is also likely in hypertensionBeta-blockers are widely used for the treatment of diseases comorbid with hypertension, in approximately 50 different concomitant medical conditions that are frequent in patients with hypertension, leading to many de facto beta-blockers first choices in clinical practiceThese observations, in totality, inform our opinion that beta-blockers are relevant first choices for hypertension in clinical practice and this fact needs highlightingFurther, these arguments suggest European hypertension guideline downgrading of beta-blockers is not justified.

Meta-Analysis of the Usefulness of Beta-Blockers to Reduce the Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Without Prior Myocardial Infarction or Left Ventricular Dysfunction

Beta-blockers (BBs) are the core of coronary artery disease (CAD) pharmacotherapy and demonstrated a well-established benefit in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI). However, the prophylactic role of BBs to affect adverse outcomes in patients with stable CAD, especially among those without a pervious history of MI or left ventricular dysfunction, is not yet addressed. We aimed to determine the effects of beta-blockers on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with stable CAD without prior MI or left ventricular dysfunction. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register for studies published from inception to March 31, 2021. Two researchers independently reviewed the database searches and selected eligible studies. A third reviewer was consulted whenever necessary. A total of 6 studies were included in the final analysis. BBs therapy did not reduce the risk of a MACE (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.20), MI (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.34), and cardiovascular death (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.14). No statistically significant effect was observed between the participants on beta-blocker and control groups. In conclusion, our meta-analysis did not show the benefit of BBs in reducing MACE among patients with stable CAD without previous history of MI or left ventricular dysfunction.

Hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: position paper by the European Society of Hypertension

Hypertension constitutes a major risk factor for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF is a prevalent clinical syndrome with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Specific guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HFpEF is not established due to lack of positive outcome data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and limitations of available studies. Although available evidence is limited, control of blood pressure (BP) is widely regarded as central to the prevention and clinical care in HFpEF. Thus, in current guidelines including the 2018 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Guidelines, blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers provides the backbone of BP-lowering therapy in hypertensive patients. Although superiority of RAS blockers has not been clearly shown in dedicated RCTs designed for HFpEF, we propose that this core drug treatment strategy is also applicable for hypertensive patients with HFpEF with the addition of some modifications. The latter apply to the use of spironolactone apart from the treatment of resistant hypertension and the use of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor. In addition, novel agents such as sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, currently already indicated for high-risk patients with diabetes to reduce heart failure hospitalizations, and finerenone represent promising therapies and results from ongoing RCTs are eagerly awaited. The development of an effective and practical classification of HFpEF phenotypes and GDMT through dedicated high-quality RCTs are major unmet needs in hypertension research and calls for action.

Comprehensive Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of First-Line β-Blocker Monotherapy in Hypertensive Patients: A Large-Scale Multicenter Observational Study

[Figure: see text].

Targeting Beta-Blocker Drug-Drug Interactions with Fibrinogen Blood Plasma Protein: A Computational and Experimental Study

In this work, one of the most prevalent polypharmacology drug–drug interaction events that occurs between two widely used beta-blocker drugs—i.e., acebutolol and propranolol—with the most abundant blood plasma fibrinogen protein was evaluated. Towards that end, molecular docking and Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations were used as complementary tools. A fibrinogen crystallographic validation for the three best ranked binding-sites shows 100% of conformationally favored residues with total absence of restricted flexibility. From those three sites, results on both the binding-site druggability and ligand transport analysis-based free energy trajectories pointed out the most preferred biophysical environment site for drug–drug interactions. Furthermore, the total affinity for the stabilization of the drug–drug complexes was mostly influenced by steric energy contributions, based mainly on multiple hydrophobic contacts with critical residues (THR22: P and SER50: Q) in such best-ranked site. Additionally, the DFT calculations revealed that the beta-blocker drug–drug complexes have a spontaneous thermodynamic stabilization following the same affinity order obtained in the docking simulations, without covalent-bond formation between both interacting beta-blockers in the best-ranked site. Lastly, experimental ultrasound density and velocity measurements were performed and allowed us to validate and corroborate the computational obtained results.

Beta-blocker therapy in heart transplant recipients: A review

Beta-blockers are essential drugs for the treatment of many cardiovascular diseases, such as heart failure, acute and chronic ischemic heart disease, tachyarrhythmias, and hypertension. However, these drugs have not been used in cardiac transplant patients for many years owing to the fear that they could reduce cardiac output and functional capacity. In recent years, however, some evidence has shown that even in cardiac transplanted patients, β-blockers are useful and effective in the treatment of sinus tachycardia, supraventricular and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and arterial hypertension. Furthermore, some data have shown that the use of β-blockers is associated with reduced mortality in heart transplant recipients. In this review, we summarize this evidence with particular emphasis on the practical aspects of the use of β-blockers in post-transplantation patients to promote the use of this important class of drugs in clinical practice.

Atenolol's Inferior Ability to Reduce Central vs Peripheral Blood Pressure Can Be Explained by the Combination of Its Heart Rate-Dependent and Heart Rate-Independent Effects

OBJECTIVE

Whether the inferior ability of atenolol to reduce central (aortic) compared to peripheral (brachial) blood pressure (BP) is related to its heart rate (HR)-dependent or -independent effects, or their combination, remains unclear. To provide further mechanistic insight into this topic, we studied the acute effects of atenolol versus nebivolol and ivabradine on systolic blood pressure amplification (SBPA; peripheral systolic BP minus central systolic BP) in a model of sick sinus syndrome patients with a permanent dual-chamber cardiac pacemaker in a nonrandomized single-blind single-group clinical trial.

METHODS

We determined hemodynamic indices noninvasively (Sphygmocor XCEL) before and at least 3 h after administration of oral atenolol 50 or 100 mg, nebivolol 5 mg, or ivabradine 5 or 7.5 mg during atrial pacing at a low (40 bpm), middle (60 bpm), and high (90 bpm) HR level in 25 participants (mean age 65.5 years, 12 men).

RESULTS

At the low HR level, i.e., when the drugs could exert their HR-dependent and HR-independent effects on central BP, only atenolol produced a significant decrease in SBPA (mean change 0.74 ± 1.58 mmHg (95% CI, 0.09-1.40; P = 0.028)), indicating inferior central vs peripheral systolic BP change. However, we observed no significant change in SBPA with atenolol at the middle and high HR levels, i.e., when HR-dependent mechanisms had been eliminated by pacing.

CONCLUSION

The findings of our trial with a mechanistic approach to the topic imply that the inferior ability of atenolol to reduce central vs peripheral BP can be explained by the combination of its heart rate-dependent and -independent effects. This trial is registered with NCT03245996.

Angiogenesis inhibitors and symptomatic anal ulcers in metastatic colorectal cancer patients *

BACKGROUND

Angiogenesis inhibitors are a standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Anal canal pain is a common adverse event, but its cause has never been described. The aim of the study was to evaluate the association between the use of angiogenesis inhibitors and symptomatic anal ulcer development.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included all 601 consecutive metastatic colorectal cancer patients undergoing first line treatment from January 2010 to June 2016 at the Veneto Institute of Oncology. Details about patient characteristics, treatment and proctology reports were retrieved and compared. Vascularization of the anal canal was evaluated with contrast MRI.

RESULTS

Fifty out of 601 patients reported perianal complaints during treatment and underwent proctologic evaluation. Among those, 16 were found to have an anal ulcer. Symptomatic anal ulcers occurred only in patients receiving bevacizumab (4.2% vs. 0% with other regimens, p = .009). The peak incidence was 4-8 weeks after treatment start. Vascularization of anal canal was significantly lower in patients treated with bevacizumab (p = .03). Hypertension and hemorrhoids were associated with a lower risk of anal ulcer occurrence (p = .009 and p = .036). Pain intensity was severe. All attempts at symptomatic treatment only led to transient benefit. The absence of symptomatic ulcers was protective against earlier permanent discontinuation of treatment (HR = .22, 95%CI: 0.04-0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

The development of symptomatic anal ulcers in patients receiving angiogenesis inhibitor is a common adverse event which can compromise the continuation of cancer therapy. We recommend an early proctologic evaluation in case of anal symptoms with the aim to prevent and timely manage such complication.

Heart Rate and Blood Pressure: "Connecting the Dots" in Epidemiology and Pathophysiology

There is robust evidence from epidemiological and clinical studies showing that elevated heart rate (HR) constitutes a powerful predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients with hypertension, underlining the significance of HR measurement in them. Autonomous nervous system dysfunction and atherosclerosis are important features in the pathogenesis of the untoward events. However, the relationship between HR and blood pressure (BP) is complex and differs depending on the type of BP measurement which is considered. This differentiation implicates complex physiological mechanisms and is of clinical importance regarding the divergent effect of the different types of antihypertensive agents on these parameters. The aim of this review is to summarize the current evidence on the relationship between HR and BP based on epidemiological, clinical, and experimental studies.

Trends in the prevalence of antihypertensive drug treatment in the Beijing Longitudinal Study of Aging

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the epidemiological characteristics of antihypertensive drug use by community residents in Beijing, China.

METHODS

Based on well-established statistical sampling techniques such as cluster, stratification, and random selection, 2832, 1828, and 2277 elderly residents aged ≥60 years in Beijing in 2000, 2004, and 2007, respectively, were included. The trend in antihypertensive drug use by elderly patients with hypertension was analyzed.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients using angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or β-blockers increased, while the proportions of both male and female patients using Chinese single-pill combination decreased. The proportion of relatively young patients using ACEIs or β-blockers increased, as did the proportion of relatively old patients using calcium channel blockers (CCB), ACEIs, or β-blockers. The proportions of both relatively young and relatively old patients using Chinese single-pill combination decreased. The proportion of urban patients using ACEIs, or β-blockers and the proportion of rural patients using CCBs or diuretics increased, while the proportion of both urban and rural patients using Chinese single-pill combination decreased.

CONCLUSION

During the 7-year study period in Beijing, the proportion of patients using CCBs, ACEIs, diuretics, or β-blockers increased, while the proportion of patients using Chinese single-pill combination decreased. Our results provide important data for the limited evidence on the trend of prevalence of antihypertensive drug used in China.

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.

Selective Heart Rate Reduction With Ivabradine Increases Central Blood Pressure in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract—

Heart rate (HR) lowering by β-blockade was shown to be beneficial after myocardial infarction. In contrast, HR lowering with ivabradine was found to confer no benefits in 2 prospective randomized trials in patients with coronary artery disease. We hypothesized that this inefficacy could be in part related to ivabradine’s effect on central (aortic) pressure. Our study included 46 patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease who were randomly allocated to placebo (n=23) or ivabradine (n=23) in a single-blinded fashion for 6 months. Concomitant baseline medication was continued unchanged throughout the study except for β-blockers, which were stopped during the study period. Central blood pressure and stroke volume were measured directly by left heart catheterization at baseline and after 6 months. For the determination of resting HR at baseline and at follow-up, 24-hour ECG monitoring was performed. Patients on ivabradine showed an increase of 11 mm Hg in central systolic pressure from 129±22 mm Hg to 140±26 mm Hg ( P =0.02) and in stroke volume by 86±21.8 to 107.2±30.0 mL ( P =0.002). In the placebo group, central systolic pressure and stroke volume remained unchanged. Estimates of myocardial oxygen consumption (HR×systolic pressure and time-tension index) remained unchanged with ivabradine.The decrease in HR from baseline to follow-up correlated with the concomitant increase in central systolic pressure ( r =−0.41, P =0.009) and in stroke volume ( r =−0.61, P <0.001). In conclusion, the decrease in HR with ivabradine was associated with an increase in central systolic pressure, which may have antagonized possible benefits of HR lowering in coronary artery disease patients.

Clinical Trials—URL:

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier NCT01039389.