Dataset Information

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

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

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of dynamic changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in an all-comer heart failure (HF) population with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%). We sought to identify independent factors related to improvement in EF and to identify risk factors for increased risk of CV events in the subgroups of improved EF (iEF) and non-improved EF (niEF), respecively.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective sub-analysis from the REDEAL HF trial, which included consecutive patients with chronic HF who were hospitalized from July 2009 to December 2017. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography data (interval ≥12 months) of 573 consecutive patients with HFrEF were analysed. iEF was defined as absolute improvement in EF ≥ 10% and follow-up EF over 40%. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, CV hospitalization, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. EF improved in 37.2% of patients with HFrEF during follow-up (median period of 17 months). iEF was independently associated with shorter HF duration (>4 vs. ≤4 years, odd ratio [OR] = 0.477, 95% CI 0.305-0.745), no coronary artery disease (CAD vs. no CAD, OR = 0.583, 95% CI 0.396-0.858), and no ICD implantation (ICD vs. no ICD, OR = 0.341, 95% CI 0.228-0.511). Compared with niEF, iEF was significantly and independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (22.1% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.019; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.674, 95% CI 0.469-0.968), lower CV mortality (8.9% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.015; HR = 0.539, 95% CI 0.317-0.916), and lower CV events risk (27.2% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; HR 0.519, 95% CI 0.381-0.708), after adjustment for age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors. Hypertension (HR = 2.452, P = 0.032) and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >1153 pg/mL, HR = 4.372, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for CV events in the iEF subgroup. ICD implantation (HR = 1.533, P = 0.011), elevated NT-proBNP (HR = 1.626, P = 0.018), increased left atrial volume index (HR = 1.461, P = 0.021), reduced lateral mitral annular plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.478, P = 0.025), and reduced tricuspid plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.491, P = 0.039) were identified as risk factors for CV events in the niEF subgroup.ConclusionsImprovement in EF is independently related to the longer survival and lower CV related mortality and hospitalization rate of HFrEF. Elevated baseline NT-proBNP is identified as the strongest prognostic factor associated with increased CV events risk in HFrEF patients both with and without improved EF, regardless of age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors.

Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.