Benefits of β blockers in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: network meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: 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.
SUBMITTER: Chatterjee S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3546627 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundEffects of beta-blockers on the prognosis of the heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the impact of beta-blockers on mortality and hospitalization in the patients with HFpEF.MethodsA search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases from 2005 to June 2013 was conducted. Clinical studies reporting outcomes of mortality and/or hospitalization for patients with HFpEF (EF ≥ 40%), being assigned to beta-blockers treatment and non-beta-blockers control group were included.ResultsA total of 12 clinical studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 10 observational studies) involving 21,206 HFpEF patients were included for this meta-analysis. The pooled analysis demonstrated that beta-blocker exposure was associated with a 9% reduction in relative risk for all-cause mortality in patients with HFpEF (95% CI: 0.87 - 0.95; P < 0.001). Whereas, the all-cause hospitalization, HF hospitalization and composite outcomes (mortality and hospitalization) were not affected by this treatment (P=0.26, P=0.97, and P=0.88 respectively).ConclusionsThe beta-blockers treatment for the patients with HFpEF was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, but not with a lower risk of hospitalization. These finding were mainly obtained from observational studies, and further investigations are needed to make an assertion.
| S-EPMC3944014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe evidence-based beta-blockers carvedilol, bisoprolol, and metoprolol succinate reduce mortality and hospitalizations among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Use of these medications is not well described in the general population of patients with HFrEF, especially among patients with potential contraindications.ObjectivesOur goal was to describe the patterns of prescription fills for carvedilol, bisoprolol, and metoprolol succinate among Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HFrEF, as well as to estimate the associations between specific contraindications for beta-blocker therapy and those patterns.Methods and resultsWith the use of the cohort of 15,205 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for HFrEF from 2007 to 2013 in the 5% Medicare random sample, we described prescription fills (30 days after discharge) and dosage patterns (1 year after discharge) for beta-blockers. By means of of Fine and Gray competing risk models, we estimated the associations between potential contraindications (hypotension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], asthma, and syncope) and prescription fill and dosing patterns while adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and health care utilization. For beneficiaries who did not die or readmitted to the hospital, 38% of hospitalizations were followed by a prescription fill for an evidence-based beta-blocker within 30 days, 12% were followed by prescription fills for at least 50% of the recommended dose of an evidence-based beta-blocker within 1 year, and 9% were followed by a prescription fill for an up-titrated dose of an evidence-based beta-blocker within 1 year. The prevalence of the contraindications were 21% for hypotension, 48% for COPD, 15% for asthma, and 12% for syncope. Among beneficiaries who did not fill a prescription for an evidence-based beta-blocker within 30 days, 67% had at least 1 of these contraindications. Hypotension, COPD, and syncope were each associated with a ∼10% lower risk of filling a prescription for an evidence-based beta-blocker.ConclusionsPrescription fill and up-titration rates for evidence-based beta-blockers are low among Medicare beneficiaries with HFrEF, but contraindications explain only a minor part of these low rates.
| S-EPMC6467695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend titrating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers (BBs) to target doses used in pivotal placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a number of RCTs comparing different doses (i.e. higher versus lower doses) of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs, the effects of higher versus lower doses on efficacy and safety remains unclear. For this reason, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs in patients with HFrEF.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Ovid from inception to April 25th, 2018 and opentrials.net and clinicaltrials.gov for relevant trials that compared different doses of medications in heart failure. We analyzed trials by drug class (ACEIs, ARBs, and BBs) for efficacy outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, HF hospitalizations, HF worsening). For safety outcomes, we pooled trials within and across drug classes.ResultsOur meta-analysis consisted of 14 RCTs. Using GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for ACEIs and ARBs was assessed as generally moderate for efficacy and high for adverse effects, whereas overall quality for BBs was very low to low. Over ~2-4 years higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs or BBs did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.02)], ARBs RR 0.96 (0.87-1.04), BBs RR 0.25 (0.06-1.01)] or all cause hospitalizations [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.86-1.02)], ARBs RR 0.98 (0.93-1.04), BBs RR 0.93 (0.39-2.24)]. However, all point estimates favoured higher doses. Higher doses of ARBs significantly reduced hospitalization for HF [RR 0.89 (0.80-0.99)- 2.8% ARR], and higher doses of ACEIs and ARBs significantly reduced HF worsening [RR 0.85 (0.79-0.92)- 5.1% ARR and 0.91 (0.84-0.99)- 3.2% ARR, respectively] compared to lower doses. None of the differences between higher versus lower doses of BBs were significant; however, precision was low. Higher doses of these medications compared to lower doses increased the risk of discontinuation due to adverse events, hypotension, dizziness, and for ACEIs and ARBs, increased hyperkalemia and elevations in serum creatinine. Absolute increase in harms for adverse effects ranged from ~ 3 to 14%.ConclusionsHigher doses of ACEIs and ARBs reduce the risk of HF worsening compared to lower doses, and higher doses of ARBs also reduce the risk of HF hospitalization but the evidence is sparse and imprecise. Higher doses increase the chance of adverse effects compared to lower doses. Evidence for BBs is inconclusive. These results support initially always starting at low doses of ACEIs/ARBs and only titrating the dose up if the patient tolerates dose increases.
| S-EPMC6394936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Many hospitalized patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction ( HF r EF ) have a slow heart rate at discharge, and the effect of ?-blockers may be reduced in those patients. We sought to examine the variable effect of ?-blockers on clinical outcomes according to the discharge heart rate of hospitalized HF r EF patients. Methods and Results The KorAHF (Korean Acute Heart Failure) registry consecutively enrolled 5625 patients hospitalized for acute heart failure. In this analysis, we included patients with HF r EF (left ventricular ejection fraction ?40%). Slow heart rate was defined as <70 beats per minute regardless of the use of ?-blockers. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause postdischarge death according to heart rate. Among 2932 patients with HF r EF , 840 (29%) had a slow heart rate and 56% received ?-blockers at discharge. Patients with slow heart rates were older and had lower 1-year mortality than those with high heart rates ( P<0.001). A significant interaction between discharge heart rate and ?-blocker use was observed ( P<0.001 for interaction). When stratified, only patients without a ?-blocker prescription and with a high heart rate showed higher 1-year mortality. In a Cox-proportional hazards regression analysis, ?-blocker prescription at discharge was associated with 24% reduced risk for 1-year mortality in patients with high heart rates (hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95) but not in those with slow heart rates (hazard ratio: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.68-1.55). Conclusions Many patients with acute heart failure have slow discharge heart rates, and ?-blockers may have a limited effect on HF r EF and slow discharge heart rate. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrial.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01389843.
| S-EPMC6405672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Beta-blockers are indicated in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. However, their efficacy in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is uncertain. We investigated the hypothesis that beta-blockers are associated with reduced adverse events in patients with HFpEF. METHODS:The Korea Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) is a prospective observational multicentre cohort study. The 5,625 patients hospitalized for acute HF syndrome in 10 tertiary university hospitals across the country have been consecutively enrolled between March 2011 and February 2014. Of these patients, 2,152 patients with HFpEF (ejection fraction ?40%) were investigated. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality according to beta-blocker use. RESULTS:During a median follow-up duration of 807 days, 702 patients died. In Cox proportional hazards model beta-blocker use was associated with a 14% reduced all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.98), but not with reduce rehospitalization (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.85-1.27). In the propensity-score matched population, beta-blockers were also associated with reduced all-cause death (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.94) but not with reduced rehospitalization (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.33). CONCLUSIONS:In Korean patients with HFpEF, use of beta-blockers is associated with reduced all-cause death but not with reduced rehospitalization.
| S-EPMC6393317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic congestive heart failure is a common condition that, if untreated, markedly impairs the quality of life and is associated with a high risk of recurrent hospitalization and death.MethodsThis review is based on articles retrieved by a selective search in PubMed, as well as on relevant guidelines.ResultsEvidence-based treatment options are available only for congestive heart failure with a low ejection fraction. Pharma - cotherapy is based on neurohumoral inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and the adrenergic system. The prognosis of patients with this condition has been further improved recently through the introduction of combined angiotensin receptor antagonists and neprilysin inhibitors. Modern implantable devices are a further component of treatment. Implantable defibrillators and special pacemakers for cardiac resynchronization are well established; the utility of alternative devices (baroreflex modulation or cardiac contractility modulation) needs to be investigated in further studies. It was recently shown that the catheter-based treatment of secondary mitral regurgitation with a MitraClip improves the outcome of selected patients.ConclusionThe treatment of chronic systolic heart failure as recommended in the relevant guidelines, with drugs and implanted devices if indicated, can significantly improve the clinical outcome.
| S-EPMC7643567 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsRecent guidelines recommend that patients with heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 40-49% should be managed similar to LVEF ≥ 50%. We investigated the effect of beta-blockers according to LVEF in double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials.Methods and resultsIndividual patient data meta-analysis of 11 trials, stratified by baseline LVEF and heart rhythm (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT0083244; PROSPERO: CRD42014010012). Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death over 1.3 years median follow-up, with an intention-to-treat analysis. For 14 262 patients in sinus rhythm, median LVEF was 27% (interquartile range 21-33%), including 575 patients with LVEF 40-49% and 244 ≥ 50%. Beta-blockers reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality compared to placebo in sinus rhythm, an effect that was consistent across LVEF strata, except for those in the small subgroup with LVEF ≥ 50%. For LVEF 40-49%, death occurred in 21/292 [7.2%] randomized to beta-blockers compared to 35/283 [12.4%] with placebo; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-1.03]. Cardiovascular death occurred in 13/292 [4.5%] with beta-blockers and 26/283 [9.2%] with placebo; adjusted HR 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-0.97). Over a median of 1.0 years following randomization (n = 4601), LVEF increased with beta-blockers in all groups in sinus rhythm except LVEF ≥50%. For patients in atrial fibrillation at baseline (n = 3050), beta-blockers increased LVEF when < 50% at baseline, but did not improve prognosis.ConclusionBeta-blockers improve LVEF and prognosis for patients with heart failure in sinus rhythm with a reduced LVEF. The data are most robust for LVEF < 40%, but similar benefit was observed in the subgroup of patients with LVEF 40-49%.
| S-EPMC5837435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Heart failure (HF) can occur in patients with preserved (HFpEF, EF?50%) or reduced (HFrEF, EF<50%) ejection fraction (EF), but changes in EF after HF diagnosis are not well described.Among a community cohort of incident HF patients diagnosed from 1984 to 2009 in Olmsted County, Minnesota, we obtained all EFs assessed by echocardiography from initial HF diagnosis until death or last follow-up through March 2010. Mixed effects models fit a unique linear regression line for each person using serial EF data. Compiled results allowed estimates of the change in EF over time in HFpEF and HFrEF. Among 1233 HF patients (48.3% male, mean age 75.0 years, mean follow-up 5.1 years), 559 (45.3%) had HFpEF at diagnosis. In HFpEF, on average, EF decreased by 5.8% over 5 years (P<0.001) with greater declines in older individuals and those with coronary disease. Conversely, EF increased in HFrEF (average increase 6.9% over 5 years, P<0.001). Greater increases were noted in women, younger patients, individuals without coronary disease, and those treated with evidence-based medications. Overall, 39% of HFpEF patients had an EF<50% and 39% of HFrEF patients had an EF?50% at some point after diagnosis. Decreases in EF over time were associated with reduced survival whereas increases in EF were associated with improved survival.These data suggest that progressive contractile dysfunction may contribute to the pathophysiology of HFpEF. Prospective longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these observations and establish the mechanism and clinical relevance of decline in EF over time in HFpEF.
| S-EPMC3661289 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFollowing the availability of new drugs for chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we sought to provide an updated and comparative synthesis of the evidence on HFrEF pharmacotherapy efficacy.MethodsWe performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis of phase 2 and 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical therapy in HFrEF patient cohorts with more than 90% of the participants with left ventricular ejection fraction less than 45% and all-cause mortality reported.ResultsSixty-nine RCTs, accounting for 91,741 subjects, were evaluated. The step-wise introduction of new drugs progressively decreased the risk of all-cause death, up to reaching a random-effects hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (95% credible intervals [CrI] 0.27-0.63) with beta blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) versus placebo. The risk was further reduced by adding sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i; HR 0.38, 95% CrI 0.22-0.60), ivabradine (HR 0.39, 95% CrI 0.21-0.64), or vericiguat (HR 0.40, 95% CrI 0.22-0.65) to neurohormonal inhibitors, and by angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), BB, and MRA (HR 0.36, 95% CrI 0.20-0.60). In a sensitivity analysis considering the ARNI and non-ARNI subgroups of SGLT2i RCTs, the combination SGLT2i + ARNI + BB + MRA was associated with the lowest HR (0.28, 95% CrI 0.16-0.45 vs. 0.40, 95% CrI 0.24-0.60 for SGLT2i + BB + ACEi + MRA). Consistent results were obtained in sensitivity analyses and by calculating surface under the cumulative ranking area, as well as for cardiovascular mortality (information available for 56 RCTs), HF hospitalization (45 RCTs), and all-cause hospitalization (26 RCTs).ConclusionsCombination medical therapy including neurohormonal inhibitors and newer drugs, especially ARNI and SGLT2i, confers the maximum benefit with regard to HFrEF prognosis.
| S-EPMC9546056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLifetime risk of heart failure has been estimated to range from 20% to 46% in diverse sex and race groups. However, lifetime risk estimates for the 2 HF phenotypes, HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are not known.MethodsParticipant-level data from 2 large prospective cohort studies, the CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study) and MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis), were pooled, excluding individuals with prevalent HF at baseline. Remaining lifetime risk estimates for HFpEF (EF ≥45%) and HFrEF (EF <45%) were determined at different index ages with the use of a modified Kaplan-Meier method with mortality and the other HF subtype as competing risks.ResultsWe included 12 417 participants >45 years of age (22.2% blacks, 44.8% men) who were followed up for median duration of 11.6 years with 2178 overall incident HF events with 561 HFrEF events and 726 HFpEF events. At the index age of 45 years, the lifetime risk for any HF through 90 years of age was higher in men than women (27.4% versus 23.8%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFrEF was higher in men than women (10.6% versus 5.8%). In contrast, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was similar in men and women. In race-stratified analyses, lifetime risk for overall HF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (25.9% versus 22.4%). Among HF subtypes, the lifetime risk for HFpEF was higher in nonblacks than blacks (11.2% versus 7.7%), whereas that for HFrEF was similar across the 2 groups. Among participants with antecedent myocardial infarction before HF diagnosis, the remaining lifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF were up to 2.5-fold and 4-fold higher, respectively, compared with those without antecedent myocardial infarction.ConclusionsLifetime risks for HFpEF and HFrEF vary by sex, race, and history of antecedent myocardial infarction. These insights into the distribution of HF risk and its subtypes could inform the development of targeted strategies to improve population-level HF prevention and control.
| S-EPMC6417883 | biostudies-literature