Should We Be Using Upstream Beta-Blocker Therapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose of review
Controversy exists whether beta-blockers should be given before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or to defer their administration for up to 24 hours.Recent findings
Animal studies, most of them conducted in the 1970s and 1980s, showed evidence that early beta-blocker administration may reduce infarct size. Subsequent human studies had mixed results on infarct size and survival. More specifically, in the current primary PCI era, only four studies evaluated the impact of early intravenous beta-blocker administration after acute myocardial infarction, only two of them before PCI. All studies agree that in hemodynamically stable patients, early intravenous beta-blocker administration is safe and protected against malignant arrhythmias. Nevertheless, results on infarct size and mortality are equivocal. Considering the heterogeneity of currently available data, further studies are still needed to assess the benefit of early injection of metoprolol in STEMI patients in a large double-blinded and randomized design versus placebo.
SUBMITTER: Giannakopoulos G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8105203 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Most of the evidences for beneficial effects of beta-blockers in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were from the clinical studies published in the pre-reperfusion era when anti-platelet drugs, statins or inhibitors of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system which are known to reduce cardiovascular mortality of patients with AMI were not introduced. In the reperfusion era, beta-blockers' benefit has not been clearly shown except in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF; ≤40%). In the era of the early reperfusion therapy for AMI, a number of patients with mildly reduced EF (>40%, <50%) or preserved EF (≥50%) become increasing. However, because no randomized clinical trials are available until now, the benefit and the optimal duration of oral treatment with beta-blockers in patients with mildly reduced or preserved EF are questionable. Registry data have not showed the association of oral beta-blocker therapy with decreased mortality in survivors without heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction after AMI. In the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-National Institute of Health of in-hospital survivors after AMI, the benefit of beta-blocker therapy at discharge was shown in patients with reduced or mildly reduced EF, but not in those with preserved EF, which provides new information about beta-blocker therapy in patients without reduced EF. However, clinical practice can be changed when the results of appropriate randomized clinical trials are available. Ongoing clinical trials may help to answer the unresolved issues of beta-blocker therapy in patients with AMI.
| S-EPMC10497890 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although ?-blockers reduce mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), early reports linking ?-blocker use with subsequent depression have potentially limited their use in vulnerable patients. We sought to provide empirical evidence to support or refute this concern by examining the association between ?-blocker initiation and change in depressive symptoms in AMI patients.Using data from 2 US multicenter, prospective registries of AMI patients, we examined 1-, 6-, and 12-month changes in depressive symptoms after the index hospitalization among patients who were ?-blocker-naïve on admission. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the validated 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8), which rates depressive symptoms from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms. A propensity-matched repeated-measures linear regression model was used to compare change in depressive symptoms among patients who were and were not initiated on a ?-blocker after AMI.Of 3,470 AMI patients who were ?-blocker-naïve on admission, 3,190 (91.9%) were initiated on a ?-blocker and 280 (8.1%) were not. Baseline PHQ-8 scores were higher in patients not initiated on a ?-blocker (mean 5.78 ± 5.45 vs 4.88 ± 5.11, P = .005). PHQ-8 scores were progressively lower at 1, 6, and 12 months in both the ?-blocker (mean decrease at 12 months 1.16, P < .0001) and no-?-blocker groups (mean decrease 1.71, P < .0001). After propensity matching 201 untreated patients with 567 treated patients, initiation of ?-blocker therapy was not associated with a difference in mean change in PHQ-8 scores at 1, 6, or 12 months after AMI (absolute mean difference with ?-blocker initiation at 12 months of 0.08, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.96, P = .86).Initiation of ?-blocker therapy after AMI was not associated with an increase in depressive symptoms. Restricting ?-blocker use because of concerns about depression appears unwarranted and may lead to undertreatment of AMI patients.
| S-EPMC4802859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Beta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction (MI) improves survival. Beta-blocker doses used in clinical practice are often substantially lower than those used in the randomized trials establishing their efficacy.This study evaluated the association of beta-blocker dose with survival after acute MI, hypothesizing that higher dose beta-blocker therapy will be associated with increased survival.A multicenter registry enrolled 7,057 consecutive patients with acute MI. Discharge beta-blocker dose was indexed to the target beta-blocker doses used in randomized clinical trials, grouped as >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, >25% to 50%, and >50% of target dose. Follow-up vital status was assessed, with the primary endpoint of time-to-death right-censored at 2 years. Multivariable and propensity score analyses were used to account for group differences.Of 6,682 patients with follow-up (median 2.1 years), 91.5% were discharged on a beta-blocker (mean dose 38.1% of the target dose). Lower mortality was observed with all beta-blocker doses (p < 0.0002) versus no beta-blocker therapy. After multivariable adjustment, hazard ratios for 2-year mortality compared with the >50% dose were 0.862 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.677 to 1.098), 0.799 (95% CI: 0.635 to 1.005), and 0.963 (95% CI: 0.765 to 1.213) for the >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, and >25% to 50% of target dose groups, respectively. Multivariable analysis with an extended set of covariates and propensity score analysis also demonstrated that higher doses were not associated with better outcome.These data do not demonstrate increased survival in patients treated with beta-blocker doses approximating those used in previous randomized clinical trials compared with lower doses. These findings provide the rationale to re-engage in research to establish appropriate beta-blocker dosing after MI to derive optimal benefit from this therapy. (The PACE-MI Registry Study-Outcomes of Beta-blocker Therapy After Myocardial Infarction [OBTAIN]: NCT00430612).
| S-EPMC4583654 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AbstractThe use of beta-blockers (BB) in the context of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) was a universal practice in the pre-reperfusion era. Since then, evidence of their use for secondary prevention after STEMI is scarce. Our aim is to determine treatment results associated with BB therapy after a STEMI at 1-year follow-up in a contemporary nationwide cohort.A prospective analysis involving 49 national centers, including patients admitted with STEMI, enrolled between October 2010 and September 2019 was conducted. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of all-cause mortality or hospital re-admission for a cardiovascular (CV) cause in the first year after STEMI. The patients were distributed into 2 groups, depending on whether they received therapy with BB at hospital discharge or not (BB and NB group, respectively).A total of 3145 patients were included in the analysis, of which 2526 (80.3%) in the BB group. A total of 12.2% of patients reached the primary outcome. Regarding the univariate Cox regression analysis, the BB group presented lower mortality or re-admission for CV cause at 1-year follow-up [hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, confidence interval (CI) 95% 0.55-0.87, P = .001]. However, after adjustment for significant covariates, this association was lost (HR 0.73, CI 95% 0.51-1.04, P = .081). In patients with preserved (HR 0.73, CI 95% 0.51-1.04, P = .081) and mid-range (HR 1.01, CI 95% 0.64-1.61, P = .959) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), the primary outcome was similar between the 2 groups, while in patients with reduced LVEF, the BB group presented a better prognosis, with fewer patients reaching the primary outcome (HR 0.431, CI 95% 0.262-0.703, P = .001).BB universal therapy after STEMI has not proved useful, but it seems to be beneficial in patients with reduced LVEF.
| S-EPMC7837933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectives: The effect of beta-blocker use after discharge on patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the contemporary reperfusion era remains ambiguous. By applying meta-analysis, we sought to assess the role of beta-blockers in the contemporary reperfusion era. Materials and Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies using propensity score matching, comparing use of beta-blockers with non-use of beta-blockers, in patients with AMI after discharge. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Odds ratios (OR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: One RCT and eight observational studies, containing 47,339 patients with AMI, were included. Compared with non-use of beta-blockers, beta-blocker use after discharge may have reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.80, I2 = 14.4%), cardiac death (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.91, I2 = 22.8%), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.86, I2 = 0), and revascularization (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.99, I2 = 0). No significant differences were found in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.17, I2 = 78.4%), heart failure (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.29 to 1.08, I2 = 0) or stroke (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.39, I2 = 0). For patients with preserved left ventricular function, beta-blocker use after discharge may have also reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.84, I2 = 0). Conclusions: Use of beta-blockers after discharge may still be beneficial for AMI patients in the contemporary reperfusion era, with or without preserved left ventricular function.
| S-EPMC9506114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The benefits of long-term maintenance beta-blocker (BB) therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been well established. Methods and Results Using the Korean nationwide registry, a total of 7159 patients with AMI treated with PCI who received BBs at discharge and were free from death or cardiovascular events for 3 months after PCI were included in the analysis. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to BB maintenance duration: <12 months, 12 to <24 months, 24 to <36 months, and ≥36 months. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death, recurrent MI, heart failure, or hospitalization for unstable angina. During a mean 5.0±2.8 years of follow-up, over half of patients with AMI (52.5%) continued BB therapy beyond 3 years following PCI. After propensity score matching and propensity score marginal mean weighting through stratification, a stepwise inverse correlation was noted between BB duration and risk of the primary outcome (<12 months: hazard ratio [HR], 2.19 [95% CI, 1.95-2.46]; 12 to <24 months: HR, 2.10 [95% CI, 1.81-2.43];, and 24 to <36 months: HR, 1.68 [95%CI, 1.45-1.94]; reference: ≥36 months). In a 3-year landmark analysis, BB use for <36 months was associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.37-1.85]) compared with BB use for ≥36 months. Conclusions Among stabilized patients with AMI following PCI, longer maintenance BB therapy, especially for >36 months, was associated with better clinical outcomes. These findings might imply that a better prognosis can be expected if patients with AMI maintain BB therapy for ≥36 months after PCI. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02806102.
| S-EPMC10492964 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsLong-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).MethodsUsing 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionVasodilating 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.
| S-EPMC8009151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOxygen (O2) is widely used in people with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Previous systematic reviews concluded that there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen reduced, increased or had no effect on heart ischaemia or infarct size. Our first Cochrane review in 2010 also concluded there was insufficient evidence to know whether oxygen should be used. Since 2010, the lack of evidence to support this widely used intervention has attracted considerable attention, prompting further trials of oxygen therapy in myocardial infarction patients. It is thus important to update this Cochrane review.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of routine use of inhaled oxygen for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Search methodsWe searched the following bibliographic databases on 6 June 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature) was last searched in September 2016. We also contacted experts to identify eligible studies. We applied no language restrictions.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials in people with suspected or proven AMI (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI) within 24 hours after onset, in which the intervention was inhaled oxygen (at normal pressure) compared to air, regardless of co-therapies provided to participants in both arms of the trial.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to see if they met the inclusion criteria and independently undertook the data extraction. We assessed the quality of studies and the risk of bias according to guidance in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The primary outcome was death. The measure of effect used was the risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro) to import data from Review Manager 5 and create 'Summary of findings' tables.Main resultsThe updated search yielded one new trial, for a total of five included studies involving 1173 participants, 32 of whom died. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of all-cause mortality in the intention-to-treat analysis was 0.99 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.95; 4 studies, N = 1123; I2 = 46%; quality of evidence: very low) and 1.02 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.98; 4 studies, N = 871; I2 = 49%; quality of evidence: very low) when only analysing participants with confirmed AMI. One trial measured pain directly, and two others measured it by opiate usage. The trial showed no effect, with a pooled RR of 0.97 for the use of opiates (95% CI 0.78 to 1.20; 2 studies, N = 250). The result on mortality and pain are inconclusive. There is no clear effect for oxygen on infarct size (the evidence is inconsistent and low quality).Authors' conclusionsThere is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support the routine use of inhaled oxygen in people with AMI, and we cannot rule out a harmful effect. Given the uncertainty surrounding the effect of oxygen therapy on all-cause mortality and on other outcomes critical for clinical decision, well-conducted, high quality randomised controlled trials are urgently required to inform guidelines in order to give definitive recommendations about the routine use of oxygen in AMI.
| S-EPMC6463792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBeta-blocker (BB) therapy after myocardial infarction (MI) reduces all-cause mortality.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate BB dosing patterns and compliance following MI.MethodsUsing medical patient files and nationwide databases, we identified 100 patients who were discharged following MI in 2012 from Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark, and subsequently redeemed one or more BB prescriptions within 6 months. We obtained information about all BB medication prescribed at discharge and all BB prescriptions redeemed until 31 December 2013. Daily BB doses were computed as percentages of the target doses used in clinical trials documenting the efficacy of BBs after MI. Four dose groups were defined: ≤12.5, >12.5-25, >25-50, and >50 % of target dose. The proportion of patients in each dose group was ascertained at and following discharge, as was the proportion that changed dose group following discharge.ResultsThe median study period was 400 days (interquartile range [IQR] 318-486 days). At discharge, 8 % of daily doses were >50 % of target dose while 80 % were ≤25 % of target dose. At first prescription redemption, 71.7 % of patients moved to a higher dose group (median dose change = 33.4 % [IQR 2.0-115.1]). Still, comparing final daily doses to discharge doses, 40.2 % did not change dose group (median dose change -5.7 % [IQR -18.0 to 4.2]). Only 31.5 % reached a final daily dose >50 % of target dose.ConclusionsTarget dose BB treatment was infrequently achieved at discharge following MI. Despite dose up-titration early after discharge, most patients did not receive target dose BB treatment approximately 1 year following MI.
| S-EPMC5042935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate how often beta-blockers were started after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in nursing home (NH) residents who previously did not use these drugs and to evaluate which factors were associated with post-AMI use of beta-blockers.DesignRetrospective cohort using linked national Minimum Data Set assessments; Online Survey, Certification and Reporting records; and Medicare claims.SettingU.S. NHs.ParticipantsNational cohort of 15,720 residents aged 65 and older who were hospitalized for AMI between May 2007 and March 2010, had not taken beta-blockers for at least 4 months before their AMI, and survived 14 days or longer after NH readmission.MeasurementsThe outcome was beta-blocker initiation within 30 days of NH readmission.ResultsFifty-seven percent (n = 8,953) of residents initiated a beta-blocker after AMI. After covariate adjustment, use of beta-blockers was less in older residents (ranging from odds ratio (OR) = 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.79-1.00 for aged 75-84 to OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.54-0.79 for ≥95 vs 65-74) and less in residents with higher levels of functional impairment (dependent or totally dependent vs independent to limited assistance: OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.75-0.94) and medication use (≥15 vs ≤10 medications: OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80-0.99). A wide variety of resident and NH characteristics were not associated with beta-blocker use, including sex, cognitive function, comorbidity burden, and NH ownership.ConclusionAlmost half of older NH residents in the United States do not initiate a beta-blocker after AMI. The absence of observed factors that strongly predict beta-blocker use may indicate a lack of consensus on how to manage older NH residents, suggesting the need to develop and disseminate thoughtful practice standards.
| S-EPMC5397324 | biostudies-literature