Dataset Information

Early intravenous beta-blockers in patients with acute coronary syndrome--a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

ABSTRACT: Intravenous (IV) beta-blockade is currently a Class IIa recommendation in early management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) without obvious contraindications.We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Register for Controlled Clinical Trials for randomized clinical trials from 1965 through December, 2011, comparing intravenous beta-blockers administered within 12 hours of presentation of ACS with standard medical therapy and/or placebo. The primary outcome assessed was the risk of short-term (in-hospital mortality-with maximum follow up duration of 90 days) all-cause mortality in the intervention group versus the comparator group. The secondary outcomes assessed were ventricular tachyarrhythmias, myocardial reinfarction, cardiogenic shock, and stroke. Pooled treatment effects were estimated using relative risk with Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio, using a random-effects model.Sixteen studies enrolling 73,396 participants met the inclusion ? exclusion criteria. In- hospital mortality was reduced 8% with intravenous beta-blockers, RR=0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-1.00; p=0.04) when compared with controls. Moreover, intravenous beta-blockade reduced the risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmias (RR=0.61; 95 % CI 0.47-0.79; p=0.0003) and myocardial reinfarction (RR=0.73, 95 % CI 0.59-0.91; p=0.004) without increase in the risk of cardiogenic shock, (RR=1.02; 95% CI 0.77-1.35; p=0.91) or stroke (RR=0.58; 95 % CI 0.17-1.98; p=0.38).Intravenous beta-blockers early in the course of appropriate patients with ACS appears to be associated with significant reduction in the risk of short-term cardiovascular outcomes, including a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality.

SUBMITTER: Chatterjee S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4104797 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early intravenous beta-blockers in patients with acute coronary syndrome--a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Chatterjee Saurav S Chaudhuri Debanik D Vedanthan Rajesh R Fuster Valentin V Ibanez Borja B Bangalore Sripal S Mukherjee Debabrata D

International journal of cardiology 20121117 2

<h4>Background</h4>Intravenous (IV) beta-blockade is currently a Class IIa recommendation in early management of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) without obvious contraindications.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Register for Controlled Clinical Trials for randomized clinical trials from 1965 through December, 2011, comparing intravenous beta-blockers administered within 12 hours of presentation of ACS with standard medical therapy and/or placebo. The p ...[more]

PMID: 23168009

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundConflicting evidence is available on the efficacy and safety of early intravenous beta-blockers before primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. We performed a patient-pooled meta-analysis of trials comparing early intravenous beta-blockers with placebo or routine care in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.AimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and safety outcomes of intravenous beta-blockers in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.MethodsFour randomized trials with a total of 1150 patients were included. The main outcome was one-year death or myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included biomarker-based infarct size, left ventricular ejection fraction during follow-up, ventricular tachycardia, and a composite safety outcome (cardiogenic shock, symptomatic bradycardia, or hypotension) during hospitalization.ResultsOne-year death or myocardial infarction was similar among beta-blocker (4.2%) and control patients (4.4%) (hazard ratio: 0.96 (95% confidence interval: 0.53-1.75, p=0.90, I2=0%). No difference was observed in biomarker-based infarct size. One-month left ventricular ejection fraction was similar, but left ventricular ejection fraction at six months was significantly higher in patients treated with early intravenous beta-blockade (52.8% versus 50.0% in the control group, p=0.03). No difference was observed in the composite safety outcome or ventricular tachycardia during hospitalization.ConclusionIn ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the administration of early intravenous beta-blockers was safe. However, there was no difference in the main outcome of one-year death or myocardial infarction with early intravenous beta-blockers. A larger clinical trial is warranted to confirm the definitive efficacy of early intravenous beta-blockers.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is known as the most effective treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, without proper therapy and patient management, stent thrombosis after PCI may lead to another myocardial infarction. In addition to aspirin and clopidogrel, tirofiban is often used as an antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. To date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) tirofiban administration for ACS patients undergoing PCI compared with intravenous (IV) administration. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the clinical efficiency and safety of IC versus intravenous (IV) tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Medline for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IC versus IV administration of tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI. We evaluated the effects of tirofiban on thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow after PCI, TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3 (TMP grade 3), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization (TVR), death, reinfarction and adverse drug effects (specifically bleeding events).ResultsSeven trials involving 1,027 patients were included in this meta-analysis. IC administration of tirofiban significantly increased TIMI grade 3 flow (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.37; P = 0.04) and TMP grade 3 (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.09 to 6.49; P = 0.03, I2 = 64%) while reducing MACE (OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.75; P = 0.002) compared with IV administration of tirofiban. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of TVR, death, reinfarction and the incidence of bleeding events between the two groups.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis supports the use of IC over IV administration of tirofiban in patients with ACS to improve TIMI flow, TMP flow and MACE. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of bleeding complications between the two groups.

Project description:BackgroundDrug-eluting stents (DES) are increasingly used for treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, clinical efficacy and safety of various types of DES is not well established in these subjects. We therefore evaluated clinical utility of second-generation and first-generation DES in patients with ACS by conducting a meta-analysis.MethodsA search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane databases, and Web of Science was made. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared second-generation DES (everolimus-eluting stents [EES] or zotarolimus-eluting stents [ZES]) versus first-generation DES (sirolimus-eluting stents [SES] or paclitaxe-eluting stents [PES]) in patients with ACS and provided data on clinical efficacy or safety endpoints were included. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects model.ResultA total of 2,757 participants with ACS in 6 RCTs were included. Compared with first-generation one, second-generation DES trended to be associated with the decreased incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis in ACS patients (risk ratio [RR] = 0.60, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.33 to 1.07, p = 0.09). However, the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) significantly increased in second-generation DES (RR = 2.08, 95%CI 1.25 to 3.47, p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), all-cause death, cardiac death, and recurrent myocardial infarction between the two arms (all p>0.10). The second-generation EES showed a tendency towards lower risk of MACEs (p = 0.06) and a beneficial effect on reducing stent thrombosis episodes (p = 0.009), while the second-generation ZES presented an increased occurrence of MACEs (p = 0.02) and TLR (p = 0.003).ConclusionSecond-generation DES, especially EES, appeared to present a lower risk of stent thrombosis, whereas second-generation ZES might increase the need for repeat revascularization in ACS patients. During coronary interventional therapy, DES class should be adequately considered in order to maximize clinical benefit of DES implantation in these specific subjects.

Project description:BackgroundAngiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and β blockers are widely used in the treatment of Marfan syndrome to try to reduce the rate of progressive aortic root enlargement characteristic of this condition, but their separate and joint effects are uncertain. We aimed to determine these effects in a collaborative individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials of these treatments.MethodsIn this meta-analysis, we identified relevant trials of patients with Marfan syndrome by systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from database inception to Nov 2, 2021. Trials were eligible if they involved a randomised comparison of an ARB versus control or an ARB versus β blocker. We used individual patient data from patients with no prior aortic surgery to estimate the effects of: ARB versus control (placebo or open control); ARB versus β blocker; and indirectly, β blocker versus control. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of change of body surface area-adjusted aortic root dimension Z score, measured at the sinuses of Valsalva.FindingsWe identified ten potentially eligible trials including 1836 patients from our search, from which seven trials and 1442 patients were eligible for inclusion in our main analyses. Four trials involving 676 eligible participants compared ARB with control. During a median follow-up of 3 years, allocation to ARB approximately halved the annual rate of change in the aortic root Z score (mean annual increase 0·07 [SE 0·02] ARB vs 0·13 [SE 0·02] control; absolute difference -0·07 [95% CI -0·12 to -0·01]; p=0·012). Prespecified secondary subgroup analyses showed that the effects of ARB were particularly large in those with pathogenic variants in fibrillin-1, compared with those without such variants (heterogeneity p=0·0050), and there was no evidence to suggest that the effect of ARB varied with β-blocker use (heterogeneity p=0·54). Three trials involving 766 eligible participants compared ARBs with β blockers. During a median follow-up of 3 years, the annual change in the aortic root Z score was similar in the two groups (annual increase -0·08 [SE 0·03] in ARB groups vs -0·11 [SE 0·02] in β-blocker groups; absolute difference 0·03 [95% CI -0·05 to 0·10]; p=0·48). Thus, indirectly, the difference in the annual change in the aortic root Z score between β blockers and control was -0·09 (95% CI -0·18 to 0·00; p=0·042).InterpretationIn people with Marfan syndrome and no previous aortic surgery, ARBs reduced the rate of increase of the aortic root Z score by about one half, including among those taking a β blocker. The effects of β blockers were similar to those of ARBs. Assuming additivity, combination therapy with both ARBs and β blockers from the time of diagnosis would provide even greater reductions in the rate of aortic enlargement than either treatment alone, which, if maintained over a number of years, would be expected to lead to a delay in the need for aortic surgery.FundingMarfan Foundation, the Oxford British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence, and the UK Medical Research Council.

Project description:Inconsistent results exist regarding the treatment effectiveness of immediate versus deferred percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of immediate versus deferred PCI in ACS patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched from their inception up to August 2019. Random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) and weight mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited 3350 patients were selected for inclusion in the final meta-analysis. Four trials included patients with non-ST elevation ACS (NSTEACS), whereas the remaining six trials included patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). There were no significant differences between immediate versus deferred PCI for the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.76, 95%CI, 0.33-1.75, P = 0.513; STEMI patients: RR, 1.24, 95%CI, 0.80-1.92, P = 0.335), myocardial infarction (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.88, 95%CI, 0.27-2.81, P = 0.826; STEMI patients: RR, 0.86, 95%CI, 0.43-1.74, P = 0.678), all-cause mortality (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.85, 95%CI, 0.38-1.88, P = 0.686; STEMI patients: RR, 1.16, 95%CI, 0.82-1.66, P = 0.407), target vessel revascularisation (NSTEACS patients: RR, 1.26, 95%CI, 0.29-5.43, P = 0.756; STEMI patients: RR, 1.01, 95%CI, 0.51-1.97, P = 0.988), or major bleeding (NSTEACS patients: RR, 0.99, 95%CI, 0.64-1.54, P = 0.972; STEMI patients: RR, 0.90, 95%CI, 0.45-1.77, P = 0.753). Although patients who underwent immediate PCI may experience increased incidences of cardiac death (RR, 1.19, 95%CI, 0.69-2.07, P = 0.525) and no or slow reflow (RR, 1.60, 95%CI, 0.91-2.84, P = 0.105), these increases were not statistically significant. We noted that immediate versus deferred PCI was associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial brush grade 3 (RR, 0.70, 95%CI, 0.56-0.88, P = 0.002); however, no significant differences were observed between immediate and deferred PCI for TIMI III flow (RR, 0.98, 95%CI, 0.93-1.03, P = 0.453), complete ST-segment resolution (RR, 0.93, 95%CI, 0.75-1.17, P = 0.548), and ejection fraction (WMD, -1.05, 95%CI, -2.58 to 0.49, P = 0.182). The findings of this study suggested that deferred PCI did not yield significant benefits for clinical endpoints. Further large-scale RCTs should be conducted to verify the findings of this study.

Dataset Information

Early intravenous beta-blockers in patients with acute coronary syndrome--a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Publications

Early intravenous beta-blockers in patients with acute coronary syndrome--a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets