Early intravenous atenolol treatment in suspected acute myocardial infarction

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.

Sudden cardiac death and the potential role of beta-adrenoceptor-blocking drugs

Sudden cardiac death is a major health problem in the industrially developed countries. The risk of sudden cardiac death may be reduced by early detection of coronary heart disease, elimination of the risk factors, treatment of the ischaemia in patients known to have coronary heart disease and suppression of ventricular arrhythmias. Of all the therapeutic measures currently available to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death, beta-adrenoceptor-blocking drugs (beta blockers) appear to be the most effective. In this paper their actions are reviewed and evidence for their efficacy is presented.

The effect of exaprolol (MG 8823) on epicardial ST-segment changes in a feline model of acute myocardial ischaemia

A model is described (anaesthetized, open-chest cats subjected to acute coronary artery occlusion) which allows the effects of drug interventions to be determined on one major electrocardiographic index of myocardial ischaemia. Epicardial ST-segment changes were continuously recorded from five individual sites on the surface of the left ventricle. Coronary artery occlusion (left anterior descending branch) resulted in marked and consistent elevations of the ST-segment in all sites in nearly all experiments. These changes started within 1 min of the onset of ischaemia and reached a peak at between 30 and 60 min; thereafter there was a gradual reduction over the next 4 h. The one significant haemodynamic effect of coronary artery occlusion was an increase in left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP). Ventricular ectopic activity was not pronounced in this model (about 50 ectopic beats over the initial 30 min post-occlusion period). Exaprolol (1.0 mg kg-1, intravenously) a potent beta-adrenoceptor blocking agent with 'membrane stabilising activity', when given 1 h after the onset of ischaemia, reduced heart rate and LV dP/dtmax and increased LVEDP. These effects were prolonged (i.e. little recovery in heart rate 3 h after administration). Exaprolol decreased total ST-segment elevation immediately after administration; this was significantly different from the effect of intravenous saline and lasted for at least 3 h. The effects appeared to be greater at sites of less pronounced ischaemia. Intramyocardial temperature records were taken to indicate a reduction in blood flow to the ischaemic region; however the alleviation of epicardial ST-segment elevation suggests an improved myocardial oxygen demand:supply ratio. Reperfusion was unsuccessfully attempted after a 4 h occlusion period; reperfusion after a shorter period (30 min) resulted in ventricular ectopic activity but no fibrillation.

The effect of beta-adrenoceptor blocking agents, with differing ancillary properties, on the arrhythmias resulting from acute coronary artery ligation in anaesthetized rats

The effects of several beta-adrenoceptor blocking agents, [+), (-) and (+/-)-oxprenolol, p-oxprenolol, practolol, propranolol and timolol) were investigated on the ventricular arrhythmias occurring within the first 30 min of acutely ligating the main left coronary artery in anaesthetized rats. The degree of cardiac and vascular beta-adrenoceptor blockade was also assessed. All the compounds exhibited antiarrhythmic activity under these conditions. The degree of cardiac beta-adrenoceptor blockade required for this protection was less for the cardioselective agents, p-oxprenolol and practolol, than for the non-selective beta-adrenoceptor blocking agents. A comparison of the two isomers of oxprenolol demonstrated that the (-)-isomer markedly suppressed ischaemic arrhythmias (ventricular ectopic beats, incidence and duration of ventricular tachycardia and duration of ventricular fibrillation) more effectively than the (+)-isomer. Compounds possessing intrinsic sympathomimetic activity (ISA) caused less marked haemodynamic changes (in equivalent beta-blocking doses) than those that did not possess this ancillary property. The membrane stabilizing activity of oxprenolol and p-oxprenolol did not appear to contribute to the antiarrhythmic activity of these agents; however, the membrane stabilizing activity of propranolol may contribute to its effectiveness. In all the drugs studied, the main pharmacological property required to suppress early postischaemic arrhythmias is blockade of cardiac beta-adrenoceptors.