Dataset Information

?-Blockers and Mortality After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Heart Failure or Ventricular Dysfunction.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:For acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without heart failure (HF), it is unclear if ?-blockers are associated with reduced mortality. OBJECTIVES:The goal of this study was to determine the association between ?-blocker use and mortality in patients with AMI without HF or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). METHODS:This cohort study used national English and Welsh registry data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. A total of 179,810 survivors of hospitalization with AMI without HF or LVSD, between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2013 (final follow-up: December 31, 2013), were assessed. Survival-time inverse probability weighting propensity scores and instrumental variable analyses were used to investigate the association between the use of ?-blockers and 1-year mortality. RESULTS:Of 91,895 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 87,915 patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, 88,542 (96.4%) and 81,933 (93.2%) received ?-blockers, respectively. For the entire cohort, with >163,772 person-years of observation, there were 9,373 deaths (5.2%). Unadjusted 1-year mortality was lower for patients who received ?-blockers compared with those who did not (4.9% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001). However, after weighting and adjustment, there was no significant difference in mortality between those with and without ?-blocker use (average treatment effect [ATE] coefficient: 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.60 to 0.75; p = 0.827). Findings were similar for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: 0.30; 95% CI: -0.98 to 1.58; p = 0.637) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (ATE coefficient: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.68 to 0.54; p = 0.819). CONCLUSIONS:Among survivors of hospitalization with AMI who did not have HF or LVSD as recorded in the hospital, the use of ?-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of death at any time point up to 1 year. (?-Blocker Use and Mortality in Hospital Survivors of Acute Myocardial Infarction Without Heart Failure; NCT02786654).

SUBMITTER: Dondo TB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5457288 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

β-Blockers and Mortality After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Heart Failure or Ventricular Dysfunction.

Dondo Tatendashe B TB Hall Marlous M West Robert M RM Jernberg Tomas T Lindahl Bertil B Bueno Hector H Danchin Nicolas N Deanfield John E JE Hemingway Harry H Fox Keith A A KAA Timmis Adam D AD Gale Chris P CP

Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20170601 22

<h4>Background</h4>For acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without heart failure (HF), it is unclear if β-blockers are associated with reduced mortality.<h4>Objectives</h4>The goal of this study was to determine the association between β-blocker use and mortality in patients with AMI without HF or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).<h4>Methods</h4>This cohort study used national English and Welsh registry data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project. A total of 179,810 survi ...[more]

PMID: 28571635

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe aim of this study is to investigate the association between adherence to beta-blocker treatment after a first acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and long-term risk of heart failure (HF) and death.Methods and resultsAll patients admitted for a first AMI included in the nationwide Swedish web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies register between 2005 and 2010 were eligible (n = 71 638). After exclusion of patients who died in-hospital, patients with previous HF, patients with unknown left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), and patients who died during the first year after the index event, 38 608 patients remained in the final analysis. Adherence to prescribed beta-blockers was determined for 1 year after the index event using the national registry for prescribed drugs and was measured as proportion of days covered, the ratio between the numbers of days covered by the dispensed prescriptions and number of days in the period. As customary, a threshold level for proportion of days covered ?80% was used to classify patients as adherent or non-adherent. At discharge 90.6% (n = 36 869) of all patients were prescribed a beta-blocker. Among 38 608 1 year survivors, 31.1% (n = 12 013) were non-adherent to beta-blockers. Patients with reduced EF with and without HF were more likely to remain adherent to beta-blockers at 1-year compared with patients with normal EF without HF (NEF). Being married/cohabiting and having higher income level, hypertension, ST-elevation MI, and percutaneous coronary intervention were associated with better adherence. Adherence was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-0.84] and a lower risk for the composite of HF readmission/death, (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78-0.89, P value <0.001) during the subsequent 4 years of follow up. These associations were favourable but less apparent in patients with HFNEF and NEF.ConclusionsNearly one in three AMI patients was non-adherent to beta-blockers within the first year. Adherence was independently associated with improved long-term outcomes; however, uncertainty remains for patients with HFNEF and NEF.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of beta-blockers in acute myocardial infarction patients without heart failure and with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≥ 50%) is unknown. Our study aimed to retrospectively analyze the associations of beta-blockers on such patients.MethodsThis is a multicenter, retrospective study. After screening 5,332 acute myocardial infarction patients, a total of 2519 patients without heart failure and with LVEF ≥ 50% were included. The patients were divided into two groups: the prescribed (n = 2049) and unprescribed (n = 470) beta-blockers group. The propensity score inverse probability treatment weighting was used to control confounding factors. We analyzed the associations between beta-blockers and outcomes in the short-term (1-year) and long-term (median, 3.61 years).ResultsThe primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were all-cause rehospitalization, cardiac death, recurrent myocardial infarction, new-onset heart failure rehospitalization. This study shows no statistically significant association between discharged with beta-blockers and all-cause mortality, either in the short-term [IPTW Adjusted, HR 1.02; 95%CI 0.43-2.40; P = 0.966] or long-term [IPTW Adjusted, HR 1.17; 95%CI 0.70-1.94; P = 0.547]. Discharged with beta-blockers was significantly associated with a reduced risk of short-term recurrent myocardial infarction [IPTW Adjusted, HR 0.44; 95%CI 0.20-0.97; P = 0.043], but there was no long-term relationship [IPTW Adjusted, HR 1.11; 95%CI 0.61-2.03; P = 0.735]. Other outcomes, such as new-onset heart failure rehospitalization and all-cause rehospitalization, were not observed with meaningful differences in either the short- or long-term. The results of sensitivity analysis were consistent with this.ConclusionsBeta-blockers might be associated with a reduced risk of recurrent myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure and with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction after acute myocardial infarction, in the short term. Beta-blockers might not be related to all-cause mortality in those patients, either in the short-term or long-term. Clinical trial registration Influence of Beta-blockers on Prognosis in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated with Normal Ejection Fraction, NCT04485988, Registered on 24/07/2020. Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundConcern has been raised about consequences of including patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) or heart transplantation in readmission and mortality measures.MethodsWe calculated unadjusted and hospital-specific 30-day risk-standardized mortality (RSMR) and readmission (RSRR) rates for all Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a primary diagnosis of AMI or HF discharged between July 2010 and June 2013. Hospitals were compared before and after excluding LVAD and heart transplantation patients. LVAD indication was measured.ResultsIn the AMI mortality (n = 506,543) and readmission (n = 526,309) cohorts, 1,166 and 1,016 patients received an LVAD while 3 and 2 had a heart transplantation, respectively. In the HF mortality (n = 1,015,335) and readmission (n = 1,254,124) cohorts, 789 and 931 received an LVAD, while 212 and 202 received a heart transplantation, respectively. Less than 2% of hospitals had either ?6 patients who received an LVAD or, independently, had ?1 heart transplantation. The AMI mortality and readmission cohorts used 1.8% and 2.8% of LVADs for semi-permanent/permanent indications, versus 73.8% and 78.0% for HF patients, respectively. The rest were for temporary/external indications. In the AMI cohort, RSMR for hospitals without LVAD patients versus hospitals with ?6 LVADs was 14.8% and 14.3%, and RSRR was 17.8% and 18.3%, respectively; the HF cohort RSMR was 11.9% and 9.7% and RSRR was 22.6% and 23.4%, respectively. In the AMI cohort, RSMR for hospitals without versus with heart transplantation patients was 14.7% and 13.9% and RSRR was 17.8% and 17.7%, respectively; in the HF cohort, RSMR was 11.9% and 11.0%, and RSRR was 22.6% and 22.6%, respectively. Estimations changed ?0.1% after excluding LVAD or heart transplantation patients.ConclusionHospitals caring for ?6 patients with LVAD or ?1 heart transplantation typically had a trend toward lower RSMRs but higher RSRRs. Rates were insignificantly changed when these patients were excluded. LVADs were primarily for acute-care in the AMI cohort and chronic support in the HF cohort. LVAD and heart transplantation patients are a distinct group with differential care requirements and outcomes, thus should be considered separately from the rest of the HF cohort.

Project description:BackgroundBeta-blockers are an essential part of standard therapy in adult congestive heart failure and therefore, are expected to be beneficial in children. However, congestive heart failure in children differs from that in adults in terms of characteristics, aetiology, and drug clearance. Therefore, paediatric needs must be specifically investigated. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2009.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of beta-adrenoceptor-blockers (beta-blockers) in children with congestive heart failure.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS up to November 2015. Bibliographies of identified studies were checked. No language restrictions were applied.Selection criteriaRandomised, controlled, clinical trials investigating the effect of beta-blocker therapy on paediatric congestive heart failure.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted and assessed data from the included trials.Main resultsWe identified four new studies for the review update; the review now includes seven studies with 420 participants. Four small studies with 20 to 30 children each, and two larger studies of 80 children each, showed an improvement of congestive heart failure with beta-blocker therapy. A larger study with 161 participants showed no evidence of benefit over placebo in a composite measure of heart failure outcomes. The included studies showed no significant difference in mortality or heart transplantation rates between the beta-blocker and control groups. No significant adverse events were reported with beta-blockers, apart from one episode of complete heart block. A meta-analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and fractional shortening (LVFS) data showed a very small improvement with beta-blockers. However, there were vast differences in the age, age range, and health of the participants (aetiology and severity of heart failure; heterogeneity of diagnoses and co-morbidities); there was a range of treatments across studies (choice of beta-blocker, dosing, duration of treatment); and a lack of standardised methods and outcome measures. Therefore, the primary outcomes could not be pooled in meta-analyses.Authors' conclusionsThere is not enough evidence to support or discourage the use of beta-blockers in children with congestive heart failure, or to propose a paediatric dosing scheme. However, the sparse data available suggested that children with congestive heart failure might benefit from beta-blocker treatment. Further investigations in clearly defined populations with standardised methodology are required to establish guidelines for therapy. Pharmacokinetic investigations of beta-blockers in children are also required to provide effective dosing in future trials.

Dataset Information

?-Blockers and Mortality After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Heart Failure or Ventricular Dysfunction.

Publications

β-Blockers and Mortality After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Heart Failure or Ventricular Dysfunction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets