Efficacy and safety of intravenous beta-blockers in acute atrial fibrillation and flutter is dependent on beta-1 selectivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Madeleine Perrett, Nisha Gohil, O. Țica, K. Bunting, D. Kotecha
{"title":"Efficacy and safety of intravenous beta-blockers in acute atrial fibrillation and flutter is dependent on beta-1 selectivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.","authors":"Madeleine Perrett, Nisha Gohil, O. Țica, K. Bunting, D. Kotecha","doi":"10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.0492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nIntravenous beta-blockers are commonly used to manage patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFl), but the choice of specific agent is often not evidence-based.\n\n\nMETHODS\nA prospectively-registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials (PROSPERO: CRD42020204772) to compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous beta-blockers against alternative pharmacological agents.\n\n\nRESULTS\nTwelve trials comparing beta-blockers with diltiazem, digoxin, verapamil, anti-arrhythmic drugs and placebo were included, with variable risk of bias and 1152 participants. With high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%; p < 0.001), there was no difference in the primary outcomes of heart rate reduction (standardised mean difference - 0.65 beats/minute compared to control, 95% CI - 1.63 to 0.32; p = 0.19) or the proportion that achieved target heart rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.36-1.97; p = 0.70). Conventional selective beta-1 blockers were inferior for target heart rate reduction versus control (RR 0.33, 0.17-0.64; p < 0.001), whereas super-selective beta-1 blockers were superior (RR 1.98, 1.54-2.54; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between beta-blockers and comparators for secondary outcomes of conversion to sinus rhythm (RR 1.15, 0.90-1.46; p = 0.28), hypotension (RR 1.85, 0.87-3.93; p = 0.11), bradycardia (RR 1.29, 0.25-6.82; p = 0.76) or adverse events leading to drug discontinuation (RR 1.03, 0.49-2.17; p = 0.93). The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were greater with non-selective beta-blockers (p = 0.031 and p < 0.001).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nAcross all intravenous beta-blockers, there was no difference with other medications for acute heart rate control in atrial fibrillation and flutter. Efficacy and safety may be improved by choosing beta-blockers with higher beta-1 selectivity.","PeriodicalId":401855,"journal":{"name":"Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.0492","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

BACKGROUND Intravenous beta-blockers are commonly used to manage patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFl), but the choice of specific agent is often not evidence-based. METHODS A prospectively-registered systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials (PROSPERO: CRD42020204772) to compare the safety and efficacy of intravenous beta-blockers against alternative pharmacological agents. RESULTS Twelve trials comparing beta-blockers with diltiazem, digoxin, verapamil, anti-arrhythmic drugs and placebo were included, with variable risk of bias and 1152 participants. With high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%; p < 0.001), there was no difference in the primary outcomes of heart rate reduction (standardised mean difference - 0.65 beats/minute compared to control, 95% CI - 1.63 to 0.32; p = 0.19) or the proportion that achieved target heart rate (risk ratio [RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.36-1.97; p = 0.70). Conventional selective beta-1 blockers were inferior for target heart rate reduction versus control (RR 0.33, 0.17-0.64; p < 0.001), whereas super-selective beta-1 blockers were superior (RR 1.98, 1.54-2.54; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between beta-blockers and comparators for secondary outcomes of conversion to sinus rhythm (RR 1.15, 0.90-1.46; p = 0.28), hypotension (RR 1.85, 0.87-3.93; p = 0.11), bradycardia (RR 1.29, 0.25-6.82; p = 0.76) or adverse events leading to drug discontinuation (RR 1.03, 0.49-2.17; p = 0.93). The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia were greater with non-selective beta-blockers (p = 0.031 and p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Across all intravenous beta-blockers, there was no difference with other medications for acute heart rate control in atrial fibrillation and flutter. Efficacy and safety may be improved by choosing beta-blockers with higher beta-1 selectivity.
静脉β受体阻滞剂治疗急性心房颤动和扑动的疗效和安全性取决于β -1选择性:随机试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
静脉-受体阻滞剂通常用于治疗急性心房颤动(AF)和心房扑动(AFl)患者,但具体药物的选择往往没有循证证据。方法前瞻性注册的随机试验系统评价和荟萃分析(PROSPERO: CRD42020204772),比较静脉-受体阻滞剂与替代药物的安全性和有效性。结果纳入12项将受体阻滞剂与地尔硫平、地高辛、维拉帕米、抗心律失常药物和安慰剂进行比较的试验,有可变偏倚风险,受试者为1152人。异质性高(I2 = 87%;p < 0.001),心率降低的主要结局没有差异(与对照组相比,标准化平均差为0.65次/分钟,95% CI为1.63至0.32;p = 0.19)或达到目标心率的比例(风险比[RR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.36-1.97;p = 0.70)。常规选择性β -1受体阻滞剂在降低目标心率方面不如对照组(RR 0.33, 0.17-0.64;p < 0.001),而超选择性β -1受体阻滞剂更优(RR 1.98, 1.54-2.54;p < 0.001)。受体阻滞剂和比较剂在转化为窦性心律的次要结局方面无显著差异(RR 1.15, 0.90-1.46;p = 0.28)、低血压(RR 1.85, 0.87-3.93;p = 0.11),心动过缓(RR 1.29, 0.25-6.82;p = 0.76)或不良事件导致停药(RR 1.03, 0.49-2.17;p = 0.93)。非选择性β受体阻滞剂组低血压和心动过缓的发生率更高(p = 0.031和p < 0.001)。结论在所有静脉β受体阻滞剂中,心房颤动和扑动的急性心率控制与其他药物没有差异。选择β -1选择性较高的β -受体阻滞剂可提高疗效和安全性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信