Safety and efficacy of early beta-blocker initiation in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis

Cyndiana Widia Dewi Sinardja, Gusti Ngurah Prana Jagannatha, Bryan Gervais de Liyis, Anastasya Maria Kosasih
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of early beta-blocker initiation in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Cyndiana Widia Dewi Sinardja, Gusti Ngurah Prana Jagannatha, Bryan Gervais de Liyis, Anastasya Maria Kosasih","doi":"10.1186/s43044-024-00558-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The beta-blocker (BB) initiation in acute heart failure (AHF) patients is still controversial. Some show the benefit of BB employment in decreasing the mortality outcome. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of in-hospital and long-term outcomes of BB initiation in AHF hospitalized patients. We searched multiple databases examining the outcome of AHF patients who had administered BB as the therapy initiation. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, composite endpoint after BB initiation when hospitalized, and post-discharge all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were adverse events after in-hospital BB initiation, including hypotension and symptomatic bradycardia after BB initiation when hospitalization and rehospitalization. Eight cohort studies with 16,639 patients suffering from AHF and cardiogenic shock, with 9923 participants allocated to the early BB group and 6,713 patients in the control group. The follow-up durations ranged from 2 to 24 months. Early BB administration significantly reduced in-hospital composite endpoints (RR: 0.42; 95% CI (0.30–0.58); p < 0.001), in-hospital all-cause mortality (RR: 0.43; 95% CI (0.31–0.61); p < 0.001), discharge mortality (RR: 0.51; 95% CI (0.41–0.63); p < 0.001), and rehospitalization (RR: 0.57; 95% CI (0.44–0.74); p < 0.001). There were no discernible differences in in-hospital BB-related adverse events between the two groups (p = 0.13). Subgroup analyses conducted on AHF patients presenting with cardiogenic shock revealed no significant differences in in-hospital composite endpoint and in-hospital mortality, and similar results were shown in the naive BB population. The BB initiation in AHF patients shows advantages in efficacy and safety outcome.","PeriodicalId":22462,"journal":{"name":"The Egyptian Heart Journal","volume":"91 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Egyptian Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43044-024-00558-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The beta-blocker (BB) initiation in acute heart failure (AHF) patients is still controversial. Some show the benefit of BB employment in decreasing the mortality outcome. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of in-hospital and long-term outcomes of BB initiation in AHF hospitalized patients. We searched multiple databases examining the outcome of AHF patients who had administered BB as the therapy initiation. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, composite endpoint after BB initiation when hospitalized, and post-discharge all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were adverse events after in-hospital BB initiation, including hypotension and symptomatic bradycardia after BB initiation when hospitalization and rehospitalization. Eight cohort studies with 16,639 patients suffering from AHF and cardiogenic shock, with 9923 participants allocated to the early BB group and 6,713 patients in the control group. The follow-up durations ranged from 2 to 24 months. Early BB administration significantly reduced in-hospital composite endpoints (RR: 0.42; 95% CI (0.30–0.58); p < 0.001), in-hospital all-cause mortality (RR: 0.43; 95% CI (0.31–0.61); p < 0.001), discharge mortality (RR: 0.51; 95% CI (0.41–0.63); p < 0.001), and rehospitalization (RR: 0.57; 95% CI (0.44–0.74); p < 0.001). There were no discernible differences in in-hospital BB-related adverse events between the two groups (p = 0.13). Subgroup analyses conducted on AHF patients presenting with cardiogenic shock revealed no significant differences in in-hospital composite endpoint and in-hospital mortality, and similar results were shown in the naive BB population. The BB initiation in AHF patients shows advantages in efficacy and safety outcome.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急性心力衰竭和心源性休克早期使用β-受体阻滞剂的安全性和有效性:系统回顾和荟萃分析
急性心力衰竭(AHF)患者开始使用β-受体阻滞剂(BB)仍存在争议。一些研究表明,使用β-受体阻滞剂有利于降低死亡率。本研究旨在评估急性心力衰竭住院患者使用β-受体阻滞剂的安全性和有效性以及长期疗效。我们检索了多个数据库,研究了使用 BB 作为初始疗法的 AHF 患者的疗效。主要结果是全因死亡率、住院期间开始使用 BB 后的综合终点以及出院后的全因死亡率。次要结果是住院时开始使用BB后的不良事件,包括住院时开始使用BB后出现的低血压和症状性心动过缓,以及再次住院时出现的低血压和症状性心动过缓。八项队列研究共涉及16639名AHF和心源性休克患者,其中9923名患者被分配到早期BB治疗组,6713名患者被分配到对照组。随访时间从2个月到24个月不等。早期BB治疗可明显降低院内复合终点(RR:0.42;95% CI (0.30-0.58);P < 0.001)、院内全因死亡率(RR:0.43;95% CI (0.31-0.61);P < 0.001)、出院死亡率(RR:0.51;95% CI (0.41-0.63);P < 0.001)和再住院率(RR:0.57;95% CI (0.44-0.74);P < 0.001)。两组患者在院内 BB 相关不良事件方面没有明显差异(P = 0.13)。对出现心源性休克的 AHF 患者进行的亚组分析显示,院内复合终点和院内死亡率无显著差异,在天真 BB 患者中也显示了类似的结果。AHF患者开始使用BB治疗在疗效和安全性方面均有优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Excimer laser coronary angioplasty: a mini-narrative review of clinical outcomes Myxomatous cause of multiple intracranial aneurysms and cognitive decline: a case report Isolated diastolic hypertension and cardiovascular outcomes across different diagnostic guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis A rare differential diagnosis of aortic stenosis with a black aortic valve: A case report Safety and efficacy of early beta-blocker initiation in acute heart failure and cardiogenic shock: systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1