Benefit of Vasodilating β-Blockers in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Nationwide Multicenter Cohort Study

The Clinical Impact of β-Blocker Therapy on Patients With Chronic Coronary Artery Disease After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The general knowledge that β-blockers are cardioprotective for patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) is mainly extrapolated from positive evidence in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or heart failure. In this propensity score-matched cohort study of 1,170 pairs of patients with chronic CAD who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, we analysed medical records for β-blockers with prescription doses and types in each patient at 3-month intervals after discharge. β-blockers were not associated with better clinical outcomes for mortality and MI. Additionally, no significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of β-blockers.

Background and Objectives

The outcome benefits of β-blockers in chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been fully assessed. We evaluated the prognostic impact of β-blockers on patients with chronic CAD after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

A total of 3,075 patients with chronic CAD were included from the Grand Drug-Eluting Stent registry. We analyzed β-blocker prescriptions, including doses and types, in each patient at 3-month intervals from discharge. After propensity score matching, 1,170 pairs of patients (β-blockers vs. no β-blockers) were derived. Primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction (MI). We further analyzed the outcome benefits of different doses (low-, medium-, and high-dose) and types (conventional or vasodilating) of β-blockers.

Results

During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 3.1 (3.0–3.1) years, 134 (5.7%) patients experienced primary outcome. Overall, β-blockers demonstrated no significant benefit in primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–1.24), all-cause death (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.60–1.25), and MI (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.49–3.15). In subgroup analysis, β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause death in patients with previous MI and/or revascularization (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.14–0.99) (p for interaction=0.045). No significant associations were found for the clinical outcomes with different doses and types of β-blockers.

Conclusions

Overall, β-blocker therapy was not associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with chronic CAD undergoing PCI. Limited mortality benefit of β-blockers may exist for patients with previous MI and/or revascularization.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03507205

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.

Long-term efficacy of vasodilating β-blocker in patients with acute myocardial infarction: nationwide multicenter prospective registry

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Long-term benefit of vasodilating β-blockers is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the long-term benefit of vasodilating β-blockers over conventional β-blockers in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS

Using nationwide prospective multicenter Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry data, we analyzed 3-year clinical outcomes of 7,269 patients with AMI who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and β-blocker therapy. Patients were classified according to treatment strategy (vasodilating β-blockers vs. conventional β-blockers). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and hospitalization for heart failure (HF) at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were each component of the primary outcome. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences of baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

In 3,079 pairs (6,158 patients) of propensity score-matched patients, the primary outcome occurred significantly less in the vasodilating β-blockers group compared with the conventional β-blockers group (7.6% vs. 9.8%, p = 0.003). Among the secondary outcomes, cardiac death occurred significantly less in the vasodilating β-blockers group than in the conventional group (3.5% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.015). The incidence rates of MI (2.4% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.160) or hospitalization for HF (2.6% vs. 3.2%, p = 0.192) were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Vasodilating β-blocker therapy was associated with better clinical outcomes compared with conventional β-blocker therapy in AMI patients undergoing PCI during 3 years follow-up. Vasodilating β-blockers could be recommended preferentially for these patients.

Optimal Dose and Type of β-blockers in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The clinical benefit of β-blockers in modern reperfusion era is not well determined. We investigated the impact of β-blockers in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after percutaneous coronary intervention. From the Grand-DES registry, a patient-level pooled registry consisting of 5 Korean multicenter prospective drug-eluting stent registries, a total of 6,690 ACS patients were included. Prescription records of dose and type of β-blockers were investigated trimonthly from discharge. Patients were categorized by the mean value of doses during the follow-up (≥50% [high-dose], ≥25% to <50% [medium-dose], and <25% [low-dose] of the full dose that was used in each randomized clinical trial) and vasodilating property of β-blockers. Three-year cumulative risk of all-cause death, cardiac death, and myocardial infarction were assessed. Patients receiving β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of all-cause and cardiac death compared with those not receiving β-blockers (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 0.35 for all-cause death; aHR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34 for cardiac death). Medium-dose β-blocker group was associated with a lower risk of cardiac death compared with high- and low-dose β-blocker groups (aHR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.96, for high-dose; aHR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74, for low-dose). Patients receiving vasodilating β-blockers were associated with a lower risk of cardiac death compared with those receiving conventional β-blockers (aHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.84). In conclusion, β-blocker therapy was associated with better clinical outcomes in patients with ACS, especially with medium-dose and vasodilating β-blockers.

The selection of β-blocker after successful reperfusion in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Background:

The selection of β-blocker for survivors after primary intervention due to acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction seems crucial to improve the outcomes. However, rare comparison data existed for these patients. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of selective β-blockers to that of carvedilol in patients treated with primary intervention.

Methods and results:

Among the 1,485 patients in the “INTERSTELLAR” registry between 2007 and 2015, 238 patients with selective β-blockers (bisoprolol, nebivolol, atenolol, bevantolol, and betaxolol) and 988 with carvedilol were included and their clinical outcomes were compared for a 2-year observation period. In the clinical baseline characteristics, the unfavorable trends in the carvedilol group were high Killip presentation, lower ejection fractions, smaller diameters, and longer lengths of deployed stents. Although mortality (2.5% vs. 1.7%; p = 0.414) and the rate of stroke (0.8% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.693) were not different between groups, the rate of recurrent myocardial infarction (4.6% vs. 1.2%; p = 0.001) and of target vessel revascularization (4.2% vs. 0.9%; p < 0.001) were lower in the carvedilol group. After eliminating the difference by propensity matching, the similar outcome result was shown (all-cause death, 0.6% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.678; stroke, 0.6% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.479; myocardial infarction, 5.0% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.003; target vessel revascularization, 4.5% vs. 0.7%, p < 0.006) for 595 matched populations. The use of carvedilol was also determined to be an independent predictor for recurrent myocardial infarctions (hazard ratio = 0.305; p = 0.005; 95% confidence interval = 0.13-0.69).

Conclusion:

Use of a carvedilol in ST-segment myocardial infarction survivor is associated with lower recurrent myocardial infarction events. Thus, it might be the better choice of β-blocker for secondary prevention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Effect of Low-Dose Nebivolol in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Multi-Center Observational Study

The optimal dose of beta blockers after acute myocardial infarction (MI) remains uncertain. We evaluated the effectiveness of low-dose nebivolol, a beta1 blocker and a vasodilator, in patients with acute MI. A total of 625 patients with acute MI from 14 teaching hospitals in Korea were divided into 2 groups according to the dose of nebivolol (nebistol®, Elyson Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea): low-dose group (1.25 mg daily, n=219) and usual- to high-dose group (≥2.5 mg daily, n=406). The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, composite of death from any cause, non-fatal MI, stroke, repeat revascularization, rehospitalization for unstable angina or heart failure) at 12 months. After adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, the rates of MACCE were not different between the low-dose and the usual- to high-dose groups (2.8% and 3.1%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 2.24, p=0.860). The low-dose nebivolol group showed higher rates of MI than the usual- to high-dose group (1.2% and 0%, p=0.008). The 2 groups had similar rates of death from any cause (1.1% and 0.3%, p=0.273), stroke (0.4% and 1.1%, p=0.384), repeat PCI (1.2% and 0.8%, p=0.428), rehospitalization for unstable angina (1.2% and 1.0%, p=0.743) and for heart failure (0.6% and 0.7%, p=0.832). In patients with acute MI, the rates of MACCE for low-dose and usual- to high-dose nebivolol were not significantly different at 12-month follow-up.

lncRNA ANRIL protects H9c2 cells against hypoxia-induced injury through targeting the miR-7-5p/SIRT1 axis

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) occurred in the heart, which underwent long-term ischemia, and was mainly caused by hypoxia. Recently, studies have uncovered the participation of long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) in the pathogenesis of heart disease. Here, we planned to probe the role and molecular basis of ANRIL in hypoxia-induced H9c2 cell injury.

METHODS

Trypan blue exclusion assay and Transwell and flow cytometry assays were conducted to assess hypoxia-induced injury by determining the viability, migration, invasion, and apoptosis of H9c2 cells in different conditions, respectively. Gene expressions were evaluated by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction or western blot analysis as needed. RNA immunoprecipitation and luciferase reporter assays were applied to confirm the associations among genes.

RESULTS

ANRIL expression was dramatically enhanced in hypoxia-injured H9c2 cells, and silencing ANRIL aggravated hypoxia-induced H9c2 cell injury. ANRIL positively regulated sirtuin 1 (SIRT1) expression via competitively binding with miR-7-5p. Moreover, inhibition of miR-7-5p counteracted ANRIL depletion-exacerbated injury in hypoxic H9c2 cells, meanwhile, forced SIRT1 expression attenuated the injury-promoting effect of miR-7-5p upregulation on hypoxic H9c2 cells.

CONCLUSION

Our findings disclosed that ANRIL plays a protective part in hypoxia-induced H9c2 cell injury via modulating the miR-7-5p/SIRT1 axis, suggesting the great potential of ANRIL as a protective target for AMI.

Clinical Events After Discontinuation of β‐Blockers in Patients Without Heart Failure Optimally Treated After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background:

β-blockers have been among the first medications shown to improve outcomes after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). With the advent of reperfusion therapy and other secondary-prevention medications, their role has become uncertain, and large-scale experience after AMI in the contemporary era is lacking. In particular, the effect of stopping β-blockers in patients initially treated after AMI is unknown.

Methods and Results:

Using the French healthcare databases, 73 450 patients (<80 years of age), admitted for AMI in 2007 to 2012, without acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in the previous 2 years and no evidence of heart failure, having received optimal treatment with myocardial revascularization and all recommended medications in the 4 months after index admission, and not having discontinued β-blockers before 1 year, were followed for 3.8 years on average. β-Blocker discontinuation was defined as 4 consecutive months without exposure. If β-blocker treatment was resumed later on, follow-up was stopped. Both the risk of the composite outcome of death or admission for ACS and the risk of all-cause mortality were assessed in relation with β-blocker discontinuation during follow-up. Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using marginal structural models accounting for time-varying confounders affected by previous exposure. A similar analysis was performed with statins. Of 204 592 patient-years, 12 002 (5.9%) corresponded to discontinued β-blocker treatment. For β-blocker discontinuation, the adjusted hazard ratio for death or ACS was 1.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.35); for all-cause death, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, 0.94–1.36). In contrast, for statin discontinuation, the adjusted hazard ratios for death or ACS and for all-cause death were 2.31 (95% confidence interval, 2.01–2.65) and 2.57 (95% confidence interval, 2.19–3.02), respectively.

Conclusions:

In routine care of patients without heart failure, revascularized and optimally treated after AMI, discontinuation of β-blockers beyond 1 year after AMI was associated with an increased risk of death or readmission for ACS, while statistical significance was not reached for the association with all-cause mortality. A contemporary randomized clinical trial is needed to precise the role of β-blockers in the long-term treatment after AMI.