Betarezeptorenblocker

Trials of beta blockers in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery have reported conflicting results. This randomised controlled trial, done in 190 hospitals in 23 countries, was designed to investigate the effects of perioperative beta blockers. We randomly assigned 8351 patients with, or at risk of, atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing non-cardiac surgery to receive extended-release metoprolol succinate (n=4174) or placebo (n=4177), by a computerised randomisation phone service. Study treatment was started 2-4 h before surgery and continued for 30 days. Patients, health-care providers, data collectors, and outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal cardiac arrest. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00182039. All 8351 patients were included in analyses; 8331 (99.8%) patients completed the 30-day follow-up. Fewer patients in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group reached the primary endpoint (244 [5.8%] patients in the metoprolol group vs 290 [6.9%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-0.99; p=0.0399). Fewer patients in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group had a myocardial infarction (176 [4.2%] vs 239 [5.7%] patients; 0.73, 0.60-0.89; p=0.0017). However, there were more deaths in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group (129 [3.1%] vs 97 [2.3%] patients; 1.33, 1.03-1.74; p=0.0317). More patients in the metoprolol group than in the placebo group had a stroke (41 [1.0%] vs 19 [0.5%] patients; 2.17, 1.26-3.74; p=0.0053). Our results highlight the risk in assuming a perioperative beta-blocker regimen has benefit without substantial harm, and the importance and need for large randomised trials in the perioperative setting. Patients are unlikely to accept the risks associated with perioperative extended-release metoprolol.

Beta blockers reduce mortality in patients who have chronic heart failure, systolic dysfunction, and are on background treatment with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. We aimed to compare the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcome. In a multicentre, double-blind, and randomised parallel group trial, we assigned 1511 patients with chronic heart failure to treatment with carvedilol (target dose 25 mg twice daily) and 1518 to metoprolol (metoprolol tartrate, target dose 50 mg twice daily). Patients were required to have chronic heart failure (NYHA II-IV), previous admission for a cardiovascular reason, an ejection fraction of less than 0.35, and to have been treated optimally with diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors unless not tolerated. The primary endpoints were all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause admission. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The mean study duration was 58 months (SD 6). The mean ejection fraction was 0.26 (0.07) and the mean age 62 years (11). The all-cause mortality was 34% (512 of 1511) for carvedilol and 40% (600 of 1518) for metoprolol (hazard ratio 0.83 [95% CI 0.74-0.93], p=0.0017). The reduction of all-cause mortality was consistent across predefined subgroups. The composite endpoint of mortality or all-cause admission occurred in 1116 (74%) of 1511 on carvedilol and in 1160 (76%) of 1518 on metoprolol (0.94 [0.86-1.02], p=0.122). Incidence of side-effects and drug withdrawals did not differ by much between the two study groups. Our results suggest that carvedilol extends survival compared with metoprolol.

Beta-blocking agents reduce the risk of hospitalization and death in patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure, but little is known about their effects in severe heart failure. We evaluated 2289 patients who had symptoms of heart failure at rest or on minimal exertion, who were clinically euvolemic, and who had an ejection fraction of less than 25 percent. In a double-blind fashion, we randomly assigned 1133 patients to placebo and 1156 patients to treatment with carvedilol for a mean period of 10.4 months, during which standard therapy for heart failure was continued. Patients who required intensive care, had marked fluid retention, or were receiving intravenous vasodilators or positive inotropic drugs were excluded. There were 190 deaths in the placebo group and 130 deaths in the carvedilol group. This difference reflected a 35 percent decrease in the risk of death with carvedilol (95 percent confidence interval, 19 to 48 percent; P=0.00013, unadjusted; P=0.0014, adjusted for interim analyses). A total of 507 patients died or were hospitalized in the placebo group, as compared with 425 in the carvedilol group. This difference reflected a 24 percent decrease in the combined risk of death or hospitalization with carvedilol (95 percent confidence interval, 13 to 33 percent; P<0.001). The favorable effects on both end points were seen consistently in all the subgroups we examined, including patients with a history of recent or recurrent cardiac decompensation. Fewer patients in the carvedilol group than in the placebo group withdrew because of adverse effects or for other reasons (P=0.02). The previously reported benefits of carvedilol with regard to morbidity and mortality in patients with mild-to-moderate heart failure were also apparent in the patients with severe heart failure who were evaluated in this trial.