Effects of acebutolol on myocardial infarct extension: a randomized electrocardiographic, enzymatic and angiographic study

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.

Effect of early treatment with anti-hypertensive drugs on short and long-term mortality in patients with an acute cardiovascular event

BACKGROUND

Acute cardiovascular events represent a therapeutic challenge. Blood pressure lowering drugs are commonly used and recommended in the early phase of these settings. This review analyses randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence for this approach.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of immediate and short-term administration of anti-hypertensive drugs on all-cause mortality, total non-fatal serious adverse events (SAE) and blood pressure, in patients with an acute cardiovascular event, regardless of blood pressure at the time of enrollment.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane clinical trial register from Jan 1966 to February 2009 were searched. Reference lists of articles were also browsed. In case of missing information from retrieved articles, authors were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-hypertensive drug with placebo or no treatment administered to patients within 24 hours of the onset of an acute cardiovascular event.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Fixed effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-five RCTs (N=166,206) were included, evaluating four classes of anti-hypertensive drugs: ACE inhibitors (12 trials), beta-blockers (20), calcium channel blockers (18) and nitrates (18). Acute stroke was studied in 6 trials (all involving CCBs). Acute myocardial infarction was studied in 59 trials. In the latter setting immediate nitrate treatment (within 24 hours) reduced all-cause mortality during the first 2 days (RR 0.81, 95%CI [0.74,0.89], p<0.0001). No further benefit was observed with nitrate therapy beyond this point. ACE inhibitors did not reduce mortality at 2 days (RR 0.91,95%CI [0.82, 1.00]), but did after 10 days (RR 0.93, 95%CI [0.87,0.98] p=0.01). No other blood pressure lowering drug administered as an immediate treatment or short-term treatment produced a statistical significant mortality reduction at 2, 10 or >/=30 days. There was not enough data studying acute stroke, and there were no RCTs evaluating other acute cardiovascular events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Nitrates reduce mortality (4-8 deaths prevented per 1000) at 2 days when administered within 24 hours of symptom onset of an acute myocardial infarction. No mortality benefit was seen when treatment continued beyond 48 hours. Mortality benefit of immediate treatment with ACE inhibitors post MI at 2 days did not reach statistical significance but the effect was significant at 10 days (2-4 deaths prevented per 1000). There is good evidence for lack of a mortality benefit with immediate or short-term treatment with beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers for acute myocardial infarction.

Effect of early treatment with propranolol on left ventricular function four weeks after myocardial infarction

Left ventricular function and exercise capacity were assessed in 79 patients randomised to receive intravenous and oral propranolol (n = 44) or conventional therapy (n = 35) within four hours of onset of their first myocardial infarction. Cineangiocardiography and exercise testing were performed four weeks after infarction to allow for maximum recovery of myocardial function. Left ventriculography showed no improvement in ejection fraction or preservation of regional contractile function in patients treated with propranolol compared with controls. A trend towards smaller end diastolic volumes was seen in the propranolol group (mean (SD) 151(42) ml) compared with controls (167(42) ml). Exercise duration and frequency of angina were not significantly different in the two groups. It is concluded that limitation of infarct size by propranolol does not lead to a significant improvement in ventricular systolic function, although left ventricular dilatation may be reduced. These findings are consistent with the known effect of early intravenous beta blockade which limits infarct size by preservation of subepicardial myocardium.

Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials

Long-term beta blockade for perhaps a year or so following discharge after an MI is now of proven value, and for many such patients mortality reductions of about 25% can be achieved. No important differences are clearly apparent among the benefits of different beta blockers, although some are more convenient than others (or have slightly fewer side effects), and it appears that those with appreciable intrinsic sympathomimetic activity may confer less benefit. If monitored, the side effects of long-term therapy are not a major problem, as when they occur they are easily reversible by changing the beta blocker or by discontinuation of treatment. By contrast, although very early IV short-term beta blockade can definitely limit infarct size, more reliable information about the effects of such treatment on mortality will not be available until a large trial (ISIS) reports later this year, with data on some thousands of patients entered within less than 4 hours of the onset of pain. Our aim has been not only to review the 65-odd randomized beta blocker trials but also to demonstrate that when many randomized trials have all applied one general approach to treatment, it is often not appropriate to base inference on individual trial results. Although there will usually be important differences from one trial to another (in eligibility, treatment, end-point assessment, and so on), physicians who wish to decide whether to adopt a particular treatment policy should try to make their decision in the light of an overview of all these related randomized trials and not just a few particular trial results. Although most trials are too small to be individually reliable, this defect of size may be rectified by an overview of many trials, as long as appropriate statistical methods are used. Fortunately, robust statistical methods exist--based on direct, unweighted summation of one O-E value from each trial--that are simple for physicians to use and understand yet provide full statistical sensitivity. These methods allow combination of information from different trials while avoiding the unjustified direct comparison of patients in one trial with patients in another. (Moreover, they can be extended of such data that there is no real need for the introduction of any more complex statistical methods that might be more difficult for physicians to trust.) Their robustness, sensitivity, and avoidance of unnecessary complexity make these particular methods an important tool in trial overviews.

Reduction of infarct size with the early use of timolol in acute myocardial infarction

One hundred forty-four patients admitted to the hospital within four hours after onset of symptoms of myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to either intravenous timolol treatment or to placebo. Timolol was given intravenously for the first 24 hours and orally thereafter for the duration of hospitalization. Infarct evolution was assessed by continuous vectorcardiography and creatine kinase release. The timolol group had reduced myocardial ischemia and infarct size as measured by an accelerated reduction of ST-vector magnitude, a significant reduction of maximal cumulative creatine kinase release (29.5 per cent), and significantly smaller changes in QRS-vector variables (20 to 25 per cent). Furthermore, the predicted creatine kinase release and maximal QRS-vector change for a given initial ST-vector magnitude was significantly reduced in the timolol group. Timolol was also associated with significant reductions in pain and need for analgesics and was well tolerated overall. This study supports the use of intravenous timolol in the early phase of suspected myocardial infarction to limit infarct size.