Effects on mortality during five years after early intervention with metoprolol 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.

Therapeutic Potential of Dietary Phenolic Acids

Although modern lifestyle has eased the quality of human life, this lifestyle's related patterns have imparted negative effects on health to acquire multiple diseases. Many synthetic drugs are invented during the last millennium but most if not all of them possess several side effects and proved to be costly. Convincing evidences have established the premise that the phytotherapeutic potential of natural compounds and need of search for novel drugs from natural sources are of high priority. Phenolic acids (PAs) are a class of secondary metabolites spread throughout the plant kingdom and generally involved in plethora of cellular processes involved in plant growth and reproduction and also produced as defense mechanism to sustain various environmental stresses. Extensive research on PAs strongly suggests that consumption of these compounds hold promise to offer protection against various ailments in humans. This paper focuses on the naturally derived PAs and summarizes the action mechanisms of these compounds during disease conditions. Based on the available information in the literature, it is suggested that use of PAs as drugs is very promising; however more research and clinical trials are necessary before these bioactive molecules can be made for treatment. Finally this review provides greater awareness of the promise that natural PAs hold for use in the disease prevention and therapy.

Clinical outcomes with β-blockers for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Debate exists about the efficacy of β-blockers in myocardial infarction and their required duration of usage in contemporary practice.

METHODS

We conducted a MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL search for randomized trials evaluating β-blockers in myocardial infarction enrolling at least 100 patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Analysis was performed stratifying trials into reperfusion-era (> 50% undergoing reperfusion or receiving aspirin/statin) or pre-reperfusion-era trials.

RESULTS

Sixty trials with 102,003 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. In the acute myocardial infarction trials, a significant interaction (Pinteraction = .02) was noted such that β-blockers reduced mortality in the pre-reperfusion (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.94) but not in the reperfusion era (IRR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05). In the pre-reperfusion era, β-blockers reduced cardiovascular mortality (IRR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98), myocardial infarction (IRR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97), and angina (IRR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95), with no difference for other outcomes. In the reperfusion era, β-blockers reduced myocardial infarction (IRR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.83) (number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 209) and angina (IRR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98) (NNTB = 26) at the expense of increase in heart failure (IRR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16) (number needed to treat to harm [NNTH] = 79), cardiogenic shock (IRR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.18-1.41) (NNTH = 90), and drug discontinuation (IRR 1.64; 95% CI, 1.55-1.73), with no benefit for other outcomes. Benefits for recurrent myocardial infarction and angina in the reperfusion era appeared to be short term (30 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In contemporary practice of treatment of myocardial infarction, β-blockers have no mortality benefit but reduce recurrent myocardial infarction and angina (short-term) at the expense of increase in heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and drug discontinuation. The guideline authors should reconsider the strength of recommendations for β-blockers post myocardial infarction.

Perindopril treatment for congestive heart failure

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is the most common and lethal consequence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with a prevalence estimated between 1% and 10%, and very high associated mortality. Preventing the continued progression of established heart failure and improving the prognosis for patients with this disease is difficult, but angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have been shown to be effective in reducing mortality in patients with CHF. In a review of the worldwide literature of the efficacy and safety of perindopril erbumine for the treatment of patients with CHF, once-daily treatment with this ACE inhibitor was shown to be effective in patients with CHF of all severities. Its use is associated with a low risk of first-dose hypotension and no unwanted effects on blood pressure in normotensive patients. Perindopril also improves arterial compliance and reverses left ventricular hypertrophy in patients with hypertension. It is well tolerated and has no significant effects on heart rate, indexes of renal function, or plasma lipid profile. It also has no clinically significant interactions with other drugs, including digoxin, likely to be taken by patients with CHF.

Sudden cardiac death

SCD continues to be an important cause of death and morbidity. Despite expanding insight into the mechanisms causing SCD, the population at high risk is not being effectively identified. Although there is still much to do in the management phase of SCD (predicting the efficacy of various therapies), recent clinical trials have helped define the relative risks and benefits of therapies in preventing SCD. Trials are underway to determine whether treating other patient populations, including asymptomatic patients after MI, will improve survival rate. The approach to reducing mortality rate will always be multifaceted; primary prevention of coronary artery disease and prompt salvage of jeopardized myocardium are 2 important aspects of this approach. In addition to interventions for MI, such as myocardial revascularization when indicated, simple and easily administered therapies that are likely to remain the most effective prophylactic interventions are aspirin, ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, and cholesterol-lowering agents. However, the MADIT and AVID data clearly demonstrate a role for ICD therapy in a subgroup of patients who have VT/VF and are at risk of cardiac arrest. Even though the absolute magnitude of benefit associated with ICDs is still to be determined, the AVID study and other recent reports provide convincing evidence that patients who have VT/VF fare better with ICDs than with antiarrhythmic drug therapy. For the high-risk population described in this article, in addition to aggressive anti-ischemic and heart failure therapy, ICDs are now a mainstay of life-saving treatment. Still to be surmounted is the challenge of identifying patients who have nonischemic substrates and of providing them with the appropriate therapy. Guided by genetic studies and new insight into the mechanisms of such problems as congenital long QT syndrome, life-saving and life-enhancing therapies may soon be available for the management of SCD.

Beta-adrenergic blockers as cardioprotective agents

The evidence supporting and describing cardioprotective effects of beta-adrenergic blocker treatment is surveyed. Details of the many studies that individually and collectively document the ability of long-term and acute beta-blocker therapy to reduce overall mortality, sudden cardiovascular death, and nonfatal reinfarction in patients surviving or experiencing a myocardial infarction are described. A discussion of the mechanisms by which beta blockers probably and theoretically achieve these benefits includes the suggestion that they may reduce plaque rupture, thus indirectly inhibiting thrombosis. It is also suggested that, in the future, further cardioprotective benefits may accrue to the use of beta blockers in conjunction with thrombolysis and of beta blockers with a duration of action sustained throughout a full 24 hours.

Beta-adrenergic blockade and calcium channel blockade in myocardial infarction

Because of their hemodynamic and antiarrhythmic actions, beta-adrenergic blockers and calcium-entry blockers have been suggested for use in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) for reducing infarct size, preventing ventricular ectopy, and for prolonging life in survivors of acute MI. Experimental studies have suggested their usefulness in these areas. Clinical studies have demonstrated a role for beta-blockers in the hyperacute phase of MI, and in longterm treatment of infarct survivors. Calcium channel blockers appear to have somewhat less utility in patients with Q wave MIs, but may have an important role in therapy of the non-Q wave infarct.