Clinical Events After Discontinuation of β‐Blockers in Patients Without Heart Failure Optimally Treated After Acute Myocardial Infarction

The Effect of Beta-Blocker Post-Myocardial Infarction With Ejection Fraction >40% Pooled Analysis From Seven Arabian Gulf Acute Coronary Syndrome Registries

The use of beta-blockers (BB) in reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) post-myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with reduced 1-year mortality, while their role in patients with mid-range and preserved LVEF post-MI remains controversial. We studied 31,620 patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in seven Arabian Gulf registries between 2005 and 2017. Patients with LVEF ≤40% were excluded. The remaining cohort was divided into two groups: BB group (n = 15,541) and non-BB group (n = 2,798), based on discharge medications. Patients in the non-BB group were relatively younger (55.3 vs. 57.4, P = .004) but higher risk at presentation; with higher Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score (119.2 vs 109.2, P < .001), higher percentage of cardiogenic shock (3.5 vs 1.4%, P < .001), despite lower prevalence of comorbidities, such as hypertension and hyperlipidemia. BB use was associated with lower 1-year mortality in a multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusting for major confounders [adjusted odds ratio (OR): 0.71 (95% CI 0.51-0.99)]. This remained the case in a sensitivity analysis using propensity score matching [adjusted OR: 0.34 (95% CI 0.16-0.73)]. In this study, using Arabian Gulf countries registries, the use of BB after ACS with LVEF >40% was independently associated with lower 1-year mortality.

Beta-Blocker Therapy After Myocardial Infarction

Historical data strongly supported the benefits of beta-blocker therapy following a myocardial infarction (MI) for its efficacy in reducing mortality and morbidity. However, in the context of the progressive evolution of treatment strategies for MI patients, the apparent benefit of beta-blocker therapy is becoming less clear. In particular, its effectiveness in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction is currently being challenged. Consequently, contemporary guidelines are now varying in their recommendations regarding the role of beta-blocker therapy in post-MI patients. This review aims to summarize and compare the largest and most influential studies from the prereperfusion era to modern practice regarding different health outcomes while highlighting the need for further research to clarify beta-blocker therapy's place in contemporary post-MI management.

2024 Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction/National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency Guideline for the Pharmacotherapy of Acute Coronary Syndromes

Many countries have published clinical practice guidelines for appropriate clinical decisions, optimal treatment, and improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Developing guidelines that are specifically tailored to the Korean environment is crucial, considering the treatment system, available medications and medical devices, racial differences, and level of language communication. In 2017, the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction established a guideline development committee. However, at that time, it was not feasible to develop guidelines, owing to the lack of knowledge and experience in guideline development and the absence of methodology experts. In 2022, the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency collaborated with a relevant academic association to develop internationally reliable guidelines, with strict adherence to the methodology for evidence-based guideline development. The first Korean acute coronary syndrome guideline starts from the 9 key questions for pharmacotherapy.

2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery" have been updated with new evidence consolidated to guide clinicians; clinicians should be advised this guideline supersedes the previously published 2014 guideline. In addition, evidence-based management strategies, including pharmacological therapies, perioperative monitoring, and devices, for cardiovascular disease and associated medical conditions, have been developed.

2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline.

STRUCTURE

Recommendations from the "2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery" have been updated with new evidence consolidated to guide clinicians; clinicians should be advised this guideline supersedes the previously published 2014 guideline. In addition, evidence-based management strategies, including pharmacological therapies, perioperative monitoring, and devices, for cardiovascular disease and associated medical conditions, have been developed.

Discontinuation of β-blocker therapy in stabilised patients after acute myocardial infarction (SMART-DECISION): rationale and design of the randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

There is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of prolonged β-blocker therapy after stabilisation of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without heart failure (HF) or left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The SMart Angioplasty Research Team: DEcision on Medical Therapy in Patients with Coronary Artery DIsease or Structural Heart Disease Undergoing InterventiON (SMART-DECISION) trial is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial designed to determine whether discontinuing β-blocker therapy after ≥1 year of maintenance in stabilised patients after AMI is non-inferior to continuing it. Patients eligible for participation are those without HF or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction >40%) who have been continuing β-blocker therapy for ≥1 year after AMI. A total of 2540 patients will be randomised 1:1 to continuation of β-blocker therapy or not. Randomisation will be stratified according to the type of AMI (ie, ST-segment-elevation MI or non-ST-segment-elevation MI), type of β-blocker (carvedilol, bisoprolol, nebivolol or other) and participating centre. The primary study endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, MI and hospitalisation for HF over a median follow-up period of 3.5 years (minimum, 2.5 years; maximum, 4.5 years). Adverse effects related to β-blocker therapy, the occurrence of atrial fibrillation, medical costs and Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information system-29 questionnaire responses will also be collected as secondary endpoints.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Medical Center (no. 2020-10-176). Informed consent is obtained from every participant before randomisation. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed journals and the key findings will be presented at international scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04769362.

Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Older People: Comprehensive Review and Multidisciplinary Practice-Based Recommendations

Managing health care for older adults aged 75 years and older can pose unique challenges stemming from age-related physiological differences and comorbidities, along with elevated risk of delirium, frailty, disability, and polypharmacy. This review is aimed at providing a comprehensive analysis of the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in older patients, a demographic substantially underrepresented in major clinical trials. Because older patients often exhibit atypical ACS symptoms, a nuanced diagnostic and risk stratification approach is necessary. We aim to address diagnostic challenges for older populations and highlight the diminished sensitivity of traditional symptoms with age, and the importance of biomarkers and imaging techniques tailored for older patients. Additionally, we review the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents for ACS management in older people, emphasizing the need for a personalized and shared decision-making approach to treatment. This review also explores revascularization strategies, considering the implications of invasive procedures in older people, and weighing the potential benefits against the heightened procedural risks, particularly with surgical revascularization techniques. We explore the perioperative management of older patients experiencing myocardial infarction in the setting of noncardiac surgeries, including preoperative risk stratification and postoperative care considerations. Furthermore, we highlight the critical role of a multidisciplinary approach involving cardiologists, geriatricians, general and internal medicine physicians, primary care physicians, and allied health, to ensure a holistic care pathway in this patient cohort.

Pharmacotherapy for Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Aging Population

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide a comprehensive summary of relevant studies and evidence concerning the utilization of different pharmacotherapeutic and revascularization strategies in managing coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome specifically in the older adult population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Approximately 30% to 40% of hospitalized patients with acute coronary syndrome are older adults, among whom the majority of cardiovascular-related deaths occur. When compared to younger patients, these individuals generally experience inferior clinical outcomes. Most clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of various therapeutics have primarily enrolled patients under the age of 75, in addition to excluding those with geriatric complexities. In this review, we emphasize the need for a personalized and comprehensive approach to pharmacotherapy for coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome in older adults, considering concomitant geriatric syndromes and age-related factors to optimize treatment outcomes while minimizing potential risks and complications. In the realm of clinical practice, cardiovascular and geriatric risks are closely intertwined, with both being significant factors in determining treatments aimed at reducing negative outcomes and attaining health conditions most valued by older adults.

Association of β-blocker use at discharge and prognosis of oldest old with acute myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

It is uncertain whether β-blockers are beneficial for long-term prognosis in older patients following acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Thus, this study sought to examine the effect of β-blockers on long-term cardiovascular mortality (CVM) in the oldest old (≥ 80 years) with AMI.

METHODS

In this prospective, consecutive, non-randomized study, a total of 1156 patients with AMI admitted within 24 h after onset of symptoms were enrolled from January 2012 to February 2020. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to examine the impact of β-blocker use on prognosis. Furthermore, one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses were used to control for systemic differences between groups. The primary outcome was long-term CVM.

RESULTS

Among the enrolled subjects, 972 (85.9%) were prescribed with β-blockers at discharge. Over a mean follow-up of 26.3 months, 224 cardiovascular deaths were recorded. Both univariate [hazard ratio (HR), 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-2.13] and multivariate (HR, 1.29, 95% CI 0.79-2.10) Cox regression analyses showed that β-blocker use had no significant association with the long-term CVM, which was further demonstrated by PSM (HR, 1.31, 95% CI 0.75-2.28) and IPTW (HR, 1.41, 95% CI 0.73-2.69) analyses. Subgroup analyses according to sex, heart rate, hypertension, diabetes, revascularization, left ventricular ejection fraction, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers use showed consistent results as well.

CONCLUSION

Our findings first suggested that the use of β-blockers at discharge in oldest old with AMI was not useful for reducing post-discharge CVM, which need to be further verified by randomized controlled trials.

The effect of discontinuing beta-blockers after different treatment durations following acute myocardial infarction in optimally treated, stable patients without heart failure: a Danish, nationwide cohort study

AIMS

We studied the effect of discontinuing beta-blockers following myocardial infarction in comparison to continuous beta-blocker use in optimally treated, stable patients without heart failure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using nationwide registers, we identified first-time myocardial infarction patients treated with beta-blockers following percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary angiography. The analysis was based on landmarks selected as 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years after the first redeemed beta-blocker prescription date. The outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, and a composite outcome of cardiovascular events and procedures. We used logistic regression and reported standardized absolute 5-year risks and risk differences at each landmark year. Among 21 220 first-time myocardial infarction patients, beta-blocker discontinuation was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or recurrent myocardial infarction compared with patients continuing beta-blockers (landmark year 5; absolute risk difference [95% confidence interval]), correspondingly; -4.19% [-8.95%; 0.57%], -1.18% [-4.11%; 1.75%], and -0.37% [-4.56%; 3.82%]). Further, beta-blocker discontinuation within 2 years after myocardial infarction was associated with an increased risk of the composite outcome (landmark year 2; absolute risk [95% confidence interval] 19.87% [17.29%; 22.46%]) compared with continued beta-blocker use (landmark year 2; absolute risk [95% confidence interval] 17.10% [16.34%; 17.87%]), which yielded an absolute risk difference [95% confidence interval] at -2.8% [-5.4%; -0.1%], however, there was no risk difference associated with discontinuation hereafter.

CONCLUSION

Discontinuation of beta-blockers 1 year or later after a myocardial infarction without heart failure was not associated with increased serious adverse events.

Comparative Effectiveness of Long-Term Maintenance Beta-Blocker Therapy After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Stable, Optimally Treated Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

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.

Association of beta-blockers beyond 1 year after myocardial infarction and cardiovascular outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Beta-blockers (BB) are an established treatment following myocardial infarction (MI). However, there is uncertainty as to whether BB beyond the first year of MI have a role in patients without heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD).

METHODS

A nationwide cohort study was conducted including 43 618 patients with MI between 2005 and 2016 in the Swedish register for coronary heart disease. Follow-up started 1 year after hospitalisation (index date). Patients with heart failure or LVSD up until the index date were excluded. Patients were allocated into two groups according to BB treatment. Primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, MI, unscheduled revascularisation and hospitalisation for heart failure. Outcomes were analysed using Cox and Fine-Grey regression models after inverse propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

Overall, 34 253 (78.5%) patients received BB and 9365 (21.5%) did not at the index date 1 year following MI. The median age was 64 years and 25.5% were female. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the unadjusted rate of primary outcome was lower among patients who received versus not received BB (3.8 vs 4.9 events/100 person-years) (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.04). Following inverse propensity score weighting and multivariable adjustment, the risk of the primary outcome was not different according to BB treatment (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04). Similar findings were observed when censoring for BB discontinuation or treatment switch during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Evidence from this nationwide cohort study suggests that BB treatment beyond 1 year of MI for patients without heart failure or LVSD was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes.

Management of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease

Heart failure (HF), diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) frequently coexist, with one comorbidity worsening the prognosis of another. β-blockers, angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors all have been shown to reduce mortality in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. However, their uptake in real-world clinical practice remains low, especially among patients who have multiple other comorbidities such as CKD and diabetes. The management of HF in patients with diabetes and CKD can be especially challenging because these patients typically are older, frail, and have multiple other comorbidities, and guideline-directed medical therapy used in HF potentially can affect renal function acutely and chronically. In this article, we discuss the available evidence for each of the foundational HF therapies in patients with diabetes and CKD, emphasizing the current challenges and outlining future directions to optimize the management of HF among these high-risk patients.

The duration of beta-blocker therapy and outcomes in patients without heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction: A multicenter prospective cohort study

Background

The duration of beta‐blocker therapy in patients without heart failure (HF) or left ventricular systolic dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unclear.

Hypothesis

Continuous beta‐blocker therapy is associated with an improved prognosis.

Methods

This is a prospective, multicenter, cohort study. One thousand four hundred and eighty‐three patients eventually met the inclusion criteria. The study groups included the continuous beta‐blocker therapy group (lasted ≥6 months) and the discontinuous beta‐blocker therapy group (consisting of the no‐beta‐blocker therapy group and the beta‐blocker therapy <6 months group). The inverse probability treatment weighting was used to control confounding factors. The study tried to learn the role of continuous beta‐blocker therapy on outcomes. The median duration of follow‐up was 13.0 months. The primary outcomes were cardiac death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The secondary outcomes were all‐cause death, stroke, unstable angina, rehospitalization for HF, and recurrent myocardial infarction (MI).

Results

Compared with discontinuous beta‐blocker therapy, continuous beta‐blocker therapy was associated with a reduced risk of unstable angina, recurrent MI, and MACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.32–0.82; p = 0.006); but this association was not available for cardiac death (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.24–1.36; p = 0.206). When compared to the subgroups of no‐beta‐blocker therapy and beta‐blocker therapy <6 months, respectively, continuous beta‐blocker therapy was still observed to be associated with a reduced risk of unstable angina, recurrent MI, and MACE.

Conclusions

Continuous beta‐blocker therapy was associated with a reduced risk of unstable angina or recurrent MI or MACE in patients without HF or left ventricular systolic dysfunction after AMI.

One-year care pathway after acute myocardial infarction in 2018: Prescription, medical care and medication adherence, using a French health insurance reimbursement database

BACKGROUND

Myocardial infarction is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Guidelines have been published to optimize medical care and involve optimization of the care pathway and hospital-city coordination.

AIMS

To describe the myocardial infarction care pathway during the year following hospital discharge, and the use of and adherence to secondary prevention drugs.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted using data from the main French health insurance reimbursement database of the ex-Aquitaine region. Information about the medical and pharmaceutical care of hospitalized patients in 2018 was collected for 12 months. Medication adherence was assessed by using the proportion of days covered by the treatment and persistence.

RESULTS

A total of 3015 patients were included, and the mean age was 66 years. Almost 76% of the patients had a reimbursement for BAS (combined prescription of beta-blocker/antiplatelet/lipid-lowering drug), BASI (combined prescription of beta-blocker/antiplatelet/lipid-lowering drug/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor) or AS (combined prescription of antiplatelet/lipid-lowering drug) treatment. Medication adherence was around 83% for aspirin and 75% for lipid-lowering drugs for the 1-year persistence. During the same time, the proportion of days covered was suboptimal. Almost 4% of patients died after leaving hospital, 45% went to a cardiac rehabilitation centre and 23% had at least one hospital readmission, whatever the reason. Patients had a mean number of 11 general practitioner consultations during the year. Almost 41% of patients did not have a consultation with a cardiologist, and 38.4% had at least two consultations. Rehabilitation and general practitioner consultations were associated with adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

These new results provide clear information on the medical care environment of patients, and help us to improve care transition. Close collaboration between healthcare practitioners is very important in the early stages of outpatient follow-up.

One-Year Landmark Analysis of the Effect of Beta-Blocker Dose on Survival After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Background Although beta-blockers are recommended following myocardial infarction (MI), the benefits of long-term treatment have not been established. The study's aim was to evaluate beta-blocker efficacy by dose in 1-year post-MI survivors. Methods and Results The OBTAIN (Outcomes of Beta-Blocker Therapy After Myocardial Infarction) registry included 7057 patients with acute MI, with 6077 one-year survivors. For this landmark analysis, beta-blocker dose status was available in 3004 patients and analyzed by use (binary) and dose at 1 year after MI. Doses were classified as no beta-blocker and >0% to 12.5%, >12.5% to 25%, >25% to 50%, and >50% of target doses used in randomized clinical trials. Age was 63 to 64 years, and approximately two thirds were men. Median follow-up duration was 1.05 years (interquartile range, 0.98-1.22). When analyzed dichotomously, beta-blocker therapy was not associated with improved survival. When analyzed by dose, propensity score analysis showed significantly increased mortality in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio,1.997; 95% CI, 1.118-3.568; P<0.02), the >0% to 12.5% group (hazard ratio, 1.817; 95% CI, 1.094-3.016; P<0.02), and the >25% to 50% group (hazard ratio, 1.764; 95% CI, 1.105-2.815; P<0.02), compared with the >12.5% to 25% dose group. The mortality in the full-dose group was not significantly higher (hazard ratio, 1.196; 95% CI, 0.687-2.083). In subgroup analyses, only history of congestive heart failure demonstrated significant interaction with beta-blocker effects on survival. Conclusions This analysis suggests that patients treated with >12.5% to 25% of the target dose used in prior randomized clinical trials beyond 1 year after MI may have enhanced survival compared with no beta-blocker and other beta-blocker doses. A new paradigm for post-MI beta-blocker therapy is needed that addresses which patients should be treated, for how long, and at what dose.

Effect of long-term beta-blocker treatment following myocardial infarction among stable, optimally treated patients without heart failure in the reperfusion era: a Danish, nationwide cohort study

AIMS

We aimed to investigate the long-term cardio-protective effect associated with beta-blocker (BB) treatment in stable, optimally treated myocardial infarction (MI) patients without heart failure (HF).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using nationwide registries, we included patients with first-time MI undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during admission and treated with both acetyl-salicylic acid and statins post-discharge between 2003 and 2018. Patients with prior history of MI, prior BB use, or any alternative indication or contraindication for BB treatment were excluded. Follow-up began 3 months following discharge in patients alive, free of cardiovascular (CV) events or procedures. Primary outcomes were CV death, recurrent MI, and a composite outcome of CV events. We used adjusted logistic regression and reported standardized absolute risks and differences (ARD) 3 years after MI. Overall, 30 177 stable, optimally treated MI patients were included (58% acute PCI, 26% sub-acute PCI, 16% CAG without intervention). At baseline, 82% of patients were on BB treatment (median age 61 years, 75% male) and 18% were not (median age 62 years, 68% male). BB treatment was associated with a similar risk of CV death, recurrent MI, and the composite outcome of CV events compared with no BB treatment [ARD (95% confidence intervals)] correspondingly; 0.1% (-0.3% to 0.5%), 0.2% (-0.7% to 1.2%), and 1.2% (-0.2% to 2.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide cohort study of stable, optimally treated MI patients without HF, we found no long-term effect of BB treatment on CV prognosis following the patients from 3 months to 3 years after MI admission.

Comparison of Outcomes with or without Beta-Blocker Therapy After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Without Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (from the Acute Coronary Syndromes Israeli Survey [ACSIS])

The contemporary benefit of routine beta-blocker therapy following myocardial infraction in the absence of heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction is unclear. We investigated the impact of beta-blockers on post myocardial infarction outcome in patients without heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction among patients enrolled in the biennial Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Surveys. MACE rates at 30 days and overall mortality at one year were compared among patients discharged on beta-blockers versus not, after multivariate analysis to adjust for baseline differences. Between the years 2000 to 2016, data from 15.211consecutive ACS patients were collected. Of 7,392 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 6007 (79.9%) were discharged on beta-blocker therapy. Prescription of beta-blockers at discharge increased modestly from 32% to 38% over the 16-year period. The 30-day MACE rates were similar in patients on vs. not on beta-blockers at discharge (9.0% and 9.5%, respectively). One year survival did not differ significantly between those on vs. not on beta-blockers (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11, p = 0.18).In conclusion, beta-blocker therapy did not affect 30 days MACE or 1-year survival after myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure or reduced ejection fraction.

Adverse Outcomes Associated With Delaying or Withholding β-Blockers After Cardiac Surgery: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Ideal timing of postoperative β-blockers is unclear. We hypothesized that patients who do not receive β-blockers immediately after cardiac surgery would have increased in-hospital mortality (primary outcome) and postoperative hemodynamic, pulmonary, neurologic, or respiratory complications (secondary outcomes).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution from January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017. We compared outcomes between patients who received β-blockers by postoperative day (POD) 5 with outcomes in patients who did not receive β-blockers at any time or received them after POD 5. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to minimize confounding. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed on the weighted sets using absent or delayed β-blockers as the independent variable and each outcome as dependent variables in separate analyses. A secondary analysis was performed in patients prescribed preoperative β-blockers. E-values were calculated for significant outcomes.

RESULTS

All results were confounder adjusted. Among patients presenting for cardiac surgery, not receiving β-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was not associated with the primary outcome in-hospital mortality, estimated odds ratio (OR; 99.5% confidence interval [CI]) of 1.6 (0.49-5.1), P = .28. Not receiving β-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation, estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 1.5 (1.1-2.1), P < .001, and pulmonary complications, estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 3.0 (1.8-5.2), P < .001. E-values were 2.4 for postoperative atrial fibrillation and 5.6 for pulmonary complications. Among patients presenting for cardiac surgery taking preoperative β-blockers, not receiving β-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was not associated with the primary outcome mortality, with estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 1.3 (0.43-4.1), P = .63. In this subset, not receiving β-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was associated with increased adjusted ORs of postoperative atrial fibrillation (OR = 1.6; 99.5% CI, 1.1-2.4; P < .001) and postoperative pulmonary complications (OR = 2.8; 99.5% CI, 1.6-5.2; P < .001). Here, e-values were 2.7 for postoperative atrial fibrillation and 5.1 for pulmonary complications. For the sensitivity analyses for secondary outcomes, exposure and outcome periods overlap. Outcomes may have occurred before or after postoperative β-blocker administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who undergo cardiac surgery, not receiving postoperative β-blockers within the first 5 days after cardiac surgery or at any time is not associated with in-hospital mortality and is associated with, but may not necessarily cause, postoperative atrial fibrillation and pulmonary complications.

2020 Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction Expert Consensus Document on Pharmacotherapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical practice guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association summarize the available evidence and provide recommendations for health professionals to enable appropriate clinical decisions and improve clinical outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, most current guidelines are based on studies in non-Asian populations in the pre-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era. The Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry is the first nationwide registry to document many aspects of AMI from baseline characteristics to treatment strategies. There are well-organized ongoing and published randomized control trials especially for antiplatelet therapy among Korean patients with AMI. Here, members of the Task Force of the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction review recent published studies during the current PCI era, and have summarized the expert consensus for the pharmacotherapy of AMI.

Beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in acute myocardial infarction managed with inhospital coronary revascularization

Pivotal trials of beta-blockers (BB) and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were largely conducted prior to the widespread adoption of early revascularization. A total of 15,073 patients with AMI who underwent inhospital coronary revascularization from January 2007 to December 2013 were analyzed. At 12 months, BB was significantly associated with a lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70–0.93) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55–0.88), while ACEI/ARB was significantly associated with lower all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66–0.98) and heart failure (HF) hospitalization (adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68–0.95). Combined BB and ACEI/ARB use was associated with the lowest incidence of MACE (adjusted HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57–0.86), all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.40–0.77) and HF hospitalization (adjusted HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48–0.86). This were consistent for left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% or ≥ 50%. In conclusion, in AMI managed with revascularization, both BB and ACEI/ARB were associated with a lower incidence of 12-month all-cause mortality. Combined BB and ACEI/ARB was associated with the lowest incidence of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization.

Poor adherence to beta-blockers is associated with increased long-term mortality even beyond the first year after an acute coronary syndrome event

Background: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients are widely treated with long-term beta-blocker therapy after cardiac event. Especially for low-risk patients, the benefits of beta-blockers on survival and the optimal therapy duration remain unclear. We investigated the effect of adherence to beta-blockers on long-term survival of ACS patients.Methods and results: A total of 1855 consecutive ACS patients who underwent angiography and survived 30 days after were followed for a median of 8.6 years. During follow-up, 30.1% (n = 558) of patients died. Adherence was assessed as yearly periods covered by medication purchases and investigated as a dynamic time-dependent variable in Cox proportional hazards models. In a univariable model, non-adherence to beta-blockers was associated with higher all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio [HR] 2.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.50-3.57; p < .001). Results were similar in multivariable models on both overall survival (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.51-2.24; p < .001) and on 1-year landmark survival (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.41-2.14; p < .001). In subgroup analyses, the increase in all-cause mortality was consistent among low-risk patients (HR 1.60, 95% CI 1.16-2.21; p = .004).Conclusion: Poor adherence to beta-blockers is associated with increased long-term mortality among ACS patients. Even low-risk patients seem to benefit from long-term beta-blocker therapy.Key messagesAdherence to secondary prevention medications diminishes drastically over the years after an ACS event.Non-adherence to β-blockers is associated with increased long-term mortality of ACS patients, and the effect on survival extends beyond the first year after an ACS event.Our follow-up was exceptionally lengthy with median follow-up period of 8.6 years.

Beta-Blockers, Calcium Channel Blockers, and Mortality in Stable Coronary Artery Disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To examine the current clinical evidence behind the use of calcium channel blockers (CCB) and beta-blockers (BB) for the treatment of patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) and their effect on mortality.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current evidence suggests that BB use as a first line antianginal medication is associated with lower 5-year all-cause mortality only in patients who had MI within a year. This could be driven due to their effects reducing the sympathetic neuro-hormonal activation of more acutely ill patients. The use of CCB as an antianginal therapy, although proven effective in multiple trials both as monotherapy and combined with other agents, has not shown mortality benefit. Both BB and CCB are effective antianginals, and the selection among them depends on the patient clinical presentation and comorbidities. BB are the only ones that have shown survival benefit in SCAD, particularly the first year post-MI.

Comparative Effectiveness of β-Blocker Use Beyond 3 Years After Myocardial Infarction and Long-Term Outcomes Among Elderly Patients

Background:

The benefit of β-blocker use beyond 3 years after a myocardial infarction (MI) has not been clearly determined.

Methods and Results:

Using data from the CRUSADE Registry (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines) linked with Medicare claims, we studied patients ≥65 years of age with MI, discharged on β-blocker therapy and alive 3 years later without a recurrent MI to evaluate β-blocker use and dose (none, <50%, and ≥50% of the recommended target) at 3 years. Using inverse probability of treatment weighting, we then examined the adjusted association between β-blocker use (and dose) at 3 years and the cardiovascular composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for recurrent MI, ischemic stroke, or heart failure over the subsequent 5 years. Of the 6893 patients ≥65 years age, β-blocker use at 3 years was 72.2% (n=4980); 43% (n=2162) of these were treated with ≥50% of the target β-blocker dose. β-blocker use was not associated with a significant difference on the composite outcome (52.4% versus 55.4%, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88–1.03; P =0.23). Neither low dose (<50% target dose) nor high dose (≥50% target dose) β-blocker use was associated with a significant difference in risk when compared with no β-blocker use. Results were also consistent in patients with and without heart failure or systolic dysfunction ( P interaction =0.30).

Conclusions:

In this observational analysis, β-blocker use beyond 3 years post-MI, regardless of the dose achieved, was not associated with improved outcomes. The role of prolonged β-blocker use, particularly in older adults, needs further investigation.

Oral anticoagulation therapy use in patients with atrial fibrillation after the introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants: findings from the French healthcare databases, 2011-2016

OBJECTIVES

To describe (i) the trend in oral anticoagulant (OAC) use following the introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients and (ii) the current patterns of use of NOAC therapy in new users with AF in France.

DESIGN

(i) Repeated cross-sectional study and (ii) population-based cohort study.

SETTING

French national healthcare databases (50 million beneficiaries).

PARTICIPANTS

(i) Patients with identified AF in 2011, 2013 and 2016 and (ii) patients with AF initiating OAC therapy in 2015-2016. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: (i) Trend in OAC therapy use in patients with AF and (ii) patterns of use of NOAC therapy in new users with AF.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2016, use of OAC therapy moderately increased (+16%), while use of antiplatelet therapy decreased (-22%) among all patients with identified AF. In 2016, among the 1.1 million AF patients, 66% used OAC therapy and were more likely to be treated by vitamin K antagonist (VKA) than NOAC therapy, including patients at higher risk of stroke (63.5%), while 33% used antiplatelet therapy. Among 192 851 new users of OAC therapy in 2015-2016 with identified AF, NOAC therapy (66.3%) was initiated more frequently than VKA therapy, including in patients at higher risk of stroke (57.8%). Reduced doses were prescribed in 40% of NOAC new users. Several situations of inappropriate use at NOAC initiation were identified, including concomitant use of drugs increasing the risk of bleeding (one in three new users) and potential NOAC underdosing.

CONCLUSIONS

OAC therapy use in patients with AF remains suboptimal 4 years after the introduction of NOACs for stroke prevention in France and improvement in appropriate prescribing regarding NOAC initiation is needed. However, NOAC therapy is now the preferred drug class for initiation of OAC therapy in patients with AF, including in patients at higher risk of stroke.