Intracoronary followed by intravenous administration of the short-acting β-blocker landiolol prevents myocardial injury in the face of elective percutaneous coronary intervention

Landiolol: An Ultra-Short-Acting β-Blocker

Landiolol is an ultra-short-acting, highly cardio-selective, β-blocker, that is currently approved for clinical use in Japan and the European Union, for the treatment of tachyarrhythmias. Landiolol is highly cardio-selective with high β1 selectivity and receptor affinity, resulting in a more potent chronotropic effect and less potent hypotensive effect compared with other β-blockers such as esmolol and propranolol. Based on the recent randomized controlled trials, low-dose landiolol may have a beneficial role in the prevention and management of postoperative atrial fibrillation following noncardiac and cardiac surgeries, including on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery. Additionally, landiolol may have potential utility for myocardial salvage and prevention of postpercutaneous coronary intervention myocardial infarction. Furthermore, the use of landiolol may also have a therapeutic effect for rate control of sepsis-related tachyarrhythmias. Positive results of recent randomized controlled trials should continue to inspire clinicians to conduct further, larger studies, to find new potential clinical applications for this novel drug.

Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Early Intravenous Administration of Beta-Blockers in Patients Suffering from Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Without Heart Failure Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Study-Level Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Several clinical studies have produced diverse results regarding the efficacy and safety of early intravenous beta-blockers in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). A study-level meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing early intravenous beta-blockers versus placebo or routine care in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was performed.

METHODS

A database search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared intravenous beta-blockers versus placebo or routine care in STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI. The efficacy outcomes were infarct size (IS, % of LV) and the myocardial salvage index (MSI) based on magnetic resonance imaging, electrocardiographic findings, heart rate, ST-segment reduction percent (STR%), and complete STR. Safety outcomes included arrhythmias in the first 24 h (ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation [VT/VF], atrial fibrillation [AF], bradycardia, and advanced atrioventricular [AV] block), cardiogenic shock and hypotension during hospitalization, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiac death, stroke, reinfarction, and heart failure readmission) at follow-up.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 1428 patients were included in this study, with 709 patients in the intravenous beta-blockers and 719 in the control group. Intravenous beta-blockers improved MSI compared to the control group (weighted mean difference [WMD] 8.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.12-13.80, P = 0.002, I² = 0%), but no differences were observed in IS (% of LV) between groups. Compared to the control group, the intravenous beta-blockers group had a lower risk of VT/VF (relative risk [RR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.94, P = 0.02, I² = 35%) without an increase of AF, bradycardia, and AV-block and significantly decreased HR, hypotension. LVEF at 1 week ± 7 days (WMD 2.06, 95% CI 0.25-3.88, P = 0.03, I² = 12%) and 6 months ± 7 days (WMD 3.24, 95% CI 1.54-4.95, P = 0.0002, I² = 0%) was improved in the intravenous beta-blockers group compared to the control group. Subgroup analysis showed that intravenous beta-blockers before PCI decreased the risk of VT/VF and improved LVEF compared to the control group. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis showed that patients with a left anterior descending (LAD) artery lesion had a smaller IS (% of LV) in the intravenous beta-blockers group compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous beta-blockers improved the MSI, decreased the risk of VT/VF in the first 24 h, and were associated with increased LVEF at 1 week and 6 months following PCI. In particular, intravenous beta-blockers started before PCI is beneficial for patients with LAD lesions.

Beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart disease in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Beta-blockers are recommended and are often used in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. However, it is currently unclear whether beta-blockers should be used in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methods has assessed the effects of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no treatment in patients without heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 40% in the non-acute phase after myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index - Expanded, BIOSIS Citation Index, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Turning Research Into Practice, Google Scholar, and SciSearch from their inception to February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing effects of beta-blockers versus control (placebo or no treatment) in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction, irrespective of publication type and status, date, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants with diagnosed heart failure at the time of randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed our published protocol, with a few changes made, and methodological recommendations provided by Cochrane and Jakobsen and colleagues. Two review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and major cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial reinfarction). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We systematically assessed risks of bias using seven bias domains and we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials randomising a total of 22,423 participants (mean age 56.9 years). All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. In all, 24 of 25 trials included a mixed group of participants with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST myocardial infarction, and no trials provided separate results for each type of infarction. One trial included participants with only ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All trials except one included participants younger than 75 years of age. Methods used to exclude heart failure were various and were likely insufficient. A total of 21 trials used placebo, and four trials used no intervention, as the comparator. All patients received usual care; 24 of 25 trials were from the pre-reperfusion era (published from 1974 to 1999), and only one trial was from the reperfusion era (published in 2018). The certainty of evidence was moderate to low for all outcomes. Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.90; I² = 15%; 22,085 participants, 21 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) and myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.76, 98% CI 0.69 to 0.88; I² = 0%; 19,606 participants, 19 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events (RR 0.72, 97.5% CI 0.69 to 0.84; 14,994 participants, 15 trials; low-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 98% CI 0.68 to 0.85; I² = 47%; 21,763 participants, 19 trials; low-certainty evidence). Hence, evidence seems to suggest that beta-blockers versus placebo or no treatment may result in a minimum reduction of 10% in RR for risks of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may not affect the risk of angina (RR 1.04, 98% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I² = 0%; 7115 participants, 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). No trials provided data on serious adverse events according to good clinical practice from the International Committee for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-GCP), nor on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blockers probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality and myocardial reinfarction in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers may further reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo or no intervention in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. These effects could, however, be driven by patients with unrecognised heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers on serious adverse events, angina, and quality of life are unclear due to sparse data or no data at all. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias, and incomplete outcome data bias alone could account for the effect seen when major cardiovascular events, angina, and myocardial infarction are assessed. The evidence in this review is of moderate to low certainty, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented here. Future trials should particularly focus on patients 75 years of age and older, and on assessment of serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP and quality of life. Newer randomised clinical trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of beta-blockers in contemporary patients without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction are to be assessed properly. Such trials ought to be designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

Efficacy of Trimetazidine in Limiting Periprocedural Myocardial Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We systematically searched the literature to assess the efficacy of trimetazidine in reducing periprocedural myocardial injury and improving postoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). An electronic search was conducted based on the PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, Springer, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases; 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Our meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in cardiac troponin I (cTnI) levels with trimetazidine compared with controls (P < .00001) but not in serum creatine kinase-myocardial band levels (P = .49). There were significantly reduced odds of ischemic ST-T segment changes with trimetazidine (P = .0.03) but lack of significant difference in the incidence of anginal attacks between the 2 groups (P = .10). Results also suggest significantly higher LVEF with trimetazidine compared with controls (P < .00001). Meta-regression analysis indicated no influence of duration of trimetazidine therapy on cTnI levels. The administration of preprocedure trimetazidine may have a role in reducing periprocedural myocardial injury in patients with CAD undergoing PCI. Evidence also suggests that postoperative trimetazidine may improve LVEF in the short term. Lack of high-quality trials and the heterogeneity of studies limit the ability of our analysis to draw strong conclusions. Further well-designed RCTs are required to supplement current evidence.

Periprocedural Myocardial Injury: Pathophysiology, Prognosis, and Prevention

The definition and clinical implications of myocardial infarction occurring in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention have been the subject of unresolved controversy. The definitions of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) are many and have evolved over recent years. Additionally, the recent advancement of different imaging modalities has provided useful information on a patients' pre-procedural risk of myocardial infarction. Nonetheless, questions on the benefit of different approaches to prevent PMI and their practical implementation remain open. This review aims to address these questions and to provide a current and contemporary perspective.

Evaluating the Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Landiolol Hydrochloride for Management of Arrhythmia in Critical Settings: Review of the Literature

Background

Landiolol hydrochloride, a highly cardio-selective beta-1 blocker with an ultra-short-acting half-life of 4 minutes, was originally approved by Japan for treatment of intraoperative tachyarrhythmias. This review aims to provide an integrated overview of the current state of knowledge of landiolol hydrochloride in the management of arrhythmia in critical settings.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to retrieve relevant articles with a total of 65 records identified.

Results

The high β1 selectivity (β1/β2 ratio of 255:1) of landiolol causes a more rapid heart rate (HR) decrease compared to esmolol while avoiding decreases in mean arterial blood pressure. Recently, it has been found useful in left ventricular dysfunction patients and fatal arrhythmia requiring emergency treatment. Recent random clinical trials (RCT) have revealed therapeutic and prophylactic effects on arrhythmia, and very low-dose landiolol might be effective for preventing postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) and sinus tachycardia. Likewise, landiolol is an optimal choice for perioperative tachycardia treatment during cardiac surgery. The high β1 selectivity of landiolol is useful in heart failure patients as a first-line therapy for tachycardia and arrhythmia as it avoids the typical depression of cardiac function seen in other β-blockers. Application in cardiac injury after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), protection for vital organs (lung, kidney, etc.) during sepsis, and stabilizing hemodynamics in pediatric patients are becoming the new frontier of landiolol use.

Conclusion

Landiolol is useful as a first-line therapy for the prevention of POAF after cardiac/non-cardiac surgery, fatal arrhythmias in heart failure patients and during PCI. Moreover, the potential therapeutic effect of landiolol for sepsis in pediatric patients is currently being explored. As positive RCT results continue to be published, new clinical uses and further clinical studies in various settings by cardiologists, intensivists and pediatric cardiologists are being conducted.

Beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization, 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart diseases in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Acute myocardial infarction is caused by blockage of the blood supplied to the heart muscle. Beta-blockers are often used in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results ranging from harms, neutral effects, to benefits. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methodology has assessed the effects of beta-blockers for acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded and BIOSIS Citation Index in June 2019. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Turning Research into Practice, Google Scholar, SciSearch, and the reference lists of included trials and previous reviews in August 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention in people with suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction. Trials were included irrespective of trial design, setting, blinding, publication status, publication year, language, and reporting of our outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed the Cochrane methodological recommendations. Four review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events according to the International Conference on Harmonization - Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP), and major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. Our primary time point of interest was less than three months after randomisation. We also assessed the outcomes at maximum follow-up beyond three months. Due to risk of multiplicity, we calculated a 97.5% confidence interval (CI) for the primary outcomes and a 98% CI for the secondary outcomes. We assessed the risks of systematic errors through seven bias domains in accordance to the instructions given in the Cochrane Handbook. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed by GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 63 trials randomising a total of 85,550 participants (mean age 57.4 years). Only one trial was at low risk of bias. The remaining trials were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence according to GRADE ranged from very low to high. Fifty-six trials commenced beta-blockers during the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction and seven trials during the subacute phase. At our primary time point 'less than three months follow-up', meta-analysis showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of a reinfarction during follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.82, 98% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.91; 67,562 participants; 18 trials; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.5% and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 196 participants. However, we found little or no effect of beta-blockers when assessing all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 97.5% CI 0.90 to 1.00; 80,452 participants; 46 trials/47 comparisons; high-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4% and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.08; 45,852 participants; 1 trial; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.4%. Regarding angina, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect (RR 0.70, 98% CI 0.25 to 1.84; 98 participants; 3 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 7.1%. None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. Only two trials specifically assessed major adverse cardiovascular events, however, no major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in either trial. At maximum follow-up beyond three months, meta-analyses showed that beta-blockers versus placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.93, 97.5% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 25,210 participants; 21 trials/22 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.1% and a NNTB of 91 participants, and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 98% CI 0.83 to 0.98; 22,457 participants; 14 trials/15 comparisons; moderate-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.2% and a NNTB of 83 participants. However, it is uncertain whether beta-blockers have a beneficial or harmful effect when assessing major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.81, 97.5% CI 0.40 to 1.66; 475 participants; 4 trials; very low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.7%; reinfarction (RR 0.89, 98% CI 0.75 to 1.08; 6825 participants; 14 trials; low-quality evidence) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.9%; and angina (RR 0.64, 98% CI 0.18 to 2.0; 844 participants; 2 trials; very low-quality evidence). None of the trials specifically assessed nor reported serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP. None of the trials assessed quality of life. We identified two ongoing randomised clinical trials investigating the effect of early administration of beta-blockers after percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis to patients with an acute myocardial infarction and one ongoing trial investigating the effect of long-term beta-blocker therapy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our present review indicates that beta-blockers for suspected or diagnosed acute myocardial infarction probably reduce the short-term risk of a reinfarction and the long-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Nevertheless, it is most likely that beta-blockers have little or no effect on the short-term risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Regarding all remaining outcomes (serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP, major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction during follow-up), the long-term risk of a reinfarction during follow-up, quality of life, and angina), further information is needed to confirm or reject the clinical effects of beta-blockers on these outcomes for people with or suspected of acute myocardial infarction.

Effects of high dose atorvastatin before elective percutaneous coronary intervention on highly sensitive troponin T and one year major cardiovascular events; a randomized clinical trial

Introduction

Some studies have demonstrated that post-PCI elevated cardiac enzymes are associated with worse outcomes. In this study, we aimed to determine if high-dose treatment with atorvastatin before planned elective PCI reduces PMI or MACE at 1-year median follow-up.

Material and methods

Eligible participants were randomly allocated to group A (80 mg atorvastatin 12 h and 40 mg 2 h before PCI) and group B (40 mg atorvastatin daily). Blood samples were obtained before and at 24 h after PCI to measure hsTnT. All patients were followed regarding MACE (combination of death, re-hospitalizations for ACS, and unplanned coronary revascularization) during one year after PCI.

Results

207 patients randomly assigned to Group A (n = 97) or group B (n = 110). The rate of PMI was lower in group A (5.2%) compared to group B (10.9%); despite near to 50% lower rate of PMI in group A, binary logistic regression showed no significant association between atorvastatin recapture and PMI. The occurrence of MACE in 97 patients of group A was 11 (11.3%), higher than 11 (10%) cases of 110 patients in group B. Cox proportional hazards regression model shows no significant difference in MACE of study groups.

Conclusion

Pretreatment of patients with stable angina who were planned to undergo an elective PCI with 120 mg of atorvastatin before the procedure confer them the same benefit in terms of PMI and MACE as 40 mg routine daily dosage of this statin does.

Role of metabolic manipulator trimetazidine in limiting percutaneous coronary intervention-induced myocardial injury

BACKGROUND

Trimetazidine (TMZ) is a metabolic modulator that shifts substrate utilization from fatty acid to carbohydrates, thereby, increasing myocardial glucose oxidation and improving myocardial ischemia. We evaluated whether TMZ is effective in reducing myocardial injury after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Patients with stable angina undergoing elective PCI were divided into two groups, one who received oral TMZ (35 mg BD) started 7 days before PCI (n = 48) and second who did not receive any TMZ (in addition to the standard therapy (n = 52)). Troponin-I (cTnI) and creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) were measured before, 8, and 24 h after PCI. The primary end point was a difference in post-PCI cTnI and CK-MB levels (vs baseline). Frequency of cTnI release in the two groups, total amount of cTnI release, and difference in TIMI flow grade before and after the procedure were also assessed.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics in the groups were comparable. Despite similar baseline levels, post-procedural cTnI was lower at 8 h (0.13 vs 0.56 ng/ml, p = 0.03) and 24 h (0.2 vs 1.13 ng/ml, p = 0.004) in the TMZ group. Decline or no change in cTnI was significantly more common in the TMZ group (26% vs 2%, p < 0.01). Total cTnI released after PCI, as assessed by area under curve was significantly lower in the TMZ group (15.84 vs 3.32 ng h/ml, p = 0.005). Although CK-MB levels were also lower in the TMZ group, the difference was not statistically significant. Incidence of post-PCI TIMI 1 or 2 flow was significantly lesser in the TMZ group.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral TMZ started 7 days before PCI was effective in limiting PCI-induced myocardial injury with lower cTnI levels and higher prevalence of TIMI-3 flow.

High-dose statin pretreatment decreases periprocedural myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of twenty-four randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that high-dose statin pretreatment may reduce the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) for certain patients; however, previous analyses have not considered patients with a history of statin maintenance treatment. In this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we reevaluated the efficacy of short-term high-dose statin pretreatment to prevent PMI and MACE in an expanded set of patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed/Medline database for RCTs that compared high-dose statin pretreatment with no statin or low-dose statin pretreatment as a prevention of PMI and MACE. We evaluated the incidence of PMI and MACE, including death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at the longest follow-up for each study for subgroups stratified by disease classification and prior low-dose statin treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty-four RCTs with a total of 5,526 patients were identified. High-dose statin pretreatment was associated with 59% relative reduction in PMI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.49; P<0.00001) and 39% relative reduction in MACE (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.45-0.83; P = 0.002). The benefit of high-dose statin pretreatment on MACE was significant for statin-naive patients (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.50-0.95; P = 0.02) and prior low dose statin-treated patients (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.12-0.65; P = 0.003); and for patients with acute coronary syndrome (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.34-0.79; P = 0.003), but not for patients with stable angina (OR: 0.71; 95% CI 0.45-1.10; P = 0.12). Long-term effects on survival were less obvious.

CONCLUSIONS

High-dose statin pretreatment can result in a significant reduction in PMI and MACE for patients undergoing elective PCI. The positive effect of high-dose statin pretreatment on PMI and MACE is significant for statin-naïve patients and patients with prior treatment. The positive effect of high-dose statin pretreatment on MACE is significant for patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Landiolol: a review of its use in intraoperative and postoperative tachyarrhythmias

Landiolol (Onoact(®)) is an intravenously administered, ultra short-acting β1-blocker with an elimination half-life of 3-4 min and ≈8-fold greater cardioselectivity than esmolol in vitro. It is approved in Japan for the treatment of intraoperative and postoperative tachyarrhythmias, but in clinical practice is also used to prevent postoperative tachyarrhythmias, such as atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting. Randomized controlled trials in patients undergoing open-heart surgery demonstrated that various dosages of landiolol (0.0005-0.04 mg/kg/min) [0.5-40 μg/kg/min] were more effective than diltiazem in converting postoperative atrial fibrillation to normal sinus rhythm during the first 8 h after surgery, and were more effective than placebo (or no landiolol) in preventing the development of atrial fibrillation during the first week after surgery (primary efficacy endpoints). In patients undergoing surgical procedures, landiolol 0.125 mg/kg/min for 1 min followed by 0.04 mg/kg/min for 10 min was superior to placebo in improving intraoperative tachycardia in randomized double-blind trials. The beneficial effects of landiolol in attenuating adverse haemodynamic or other changes that can occur during surgery or invasive procedures (e.g. percutaneous coronary intervention) have been demonstrated in a large number of randomized controlled trials. For example, several studies showed that landiolol attenuated the increase in heart rate associated with tracheal intubation, without adversely affecting blood pressure or other haemodynamic parameters. Landiolol was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, with a relatively low risk of hypotension and bradycardia, although routine monitoring of cardiac function during landiolol administration is important. In general, adverse events such as reduced blood pressure resolve quickly after discontinuation of landiolol. Thus, as an ultra short-acting β1-blocker with a rapid onset of action and readily titratable and rapidly reversible effects, landiolol represents an important agent for the management of intraoperative and postoperative tachyarrhythmias.