Comparison between beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers in patients with atrial fibrillation according to renal function

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
José Antonio Parada Barcia MD, Sergio Raposeiras Roubin MD, PhD, David González Fernández MD, André González García MD, Carla Iglesias Otero MD, Inmaculada González Bermúdez MD, Andrés Íñiguez Romo MD, Emad Abu-Assi MD, PhD
{"title":"Comparison between beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers in patients with atrial fibrillation according to renal function","authors":"José Antonio Parada Barcia MD,&nbsp;Sergio Raposeiras Roubin MD, PhD,&nbsp;David González Fernández MD,&nbsp;André González García MD,&nbsp;Carla Iglesias Otero MD,&nbsp;Inmaculada González Bermúdez MD,&nbsp;Andrés Íñiguez Romo MD,&nbsp;Emad Abu-Assi MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/clc.24257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Rate control is the most commonly employed first-line management strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Principal agents used to control heart rate (HR) include beta-blockers (BB) and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (ND-CCB). However, there is a paucity of published studies of the differences between those drugs in CKD patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Hypothesis</h3>\n \n <p>The present study aimed to investigate the differences, in terms of hospitalizations due to a poor HR control, in patients with AF under a rate-control strategy according to glomerular filtration rate (GFR).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The study cohort included 2804 AF patients under rate-control regime (BB or ND-CCB) between January 2014 and April 2020. The end point, determined by competing risk regression, was hospitalizations for AF with rapid ventricular response (RVR), slow ventricular response (SVR), and need for pacemaker.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>On multivariate analysis, there were no statistical differences between ND-CCB and BB for subjects with GFR &gt; 60 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> (subdistribution heart rate [sHR] 0.850, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61–1.19; <i>p</i> = .442) and GFR 30–59 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> (sHR 1.242, 95% CI: 0.80–1.63; <i>p</i> = .333), while in patients with GFR &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, ND-CCB therapy was associated with increased hospitalizations due to poor HR control (sHR 4.53, 95% CI: 1.19–17.18; <i>p</i> = .026).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In patients with GFR ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, the choice of ND-CCB or BB had no impact on hospitalizations due to poor HR control, while in GFR &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup>, a possible association was detected. The effects of these drugs on GFR &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> would require further investigation.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/clc.24257","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/clc.24257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Rate control is the most commonly employed first-line management strategy for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Principal agents used to control heart rate (HR) include beta-blockers (BB) and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (ND-CCB). However, there is a paucity of published studies of the differences between those drugs in CKD patients.

Hypothesis

The present study aimed to investigate the differences, in terms of hospitalizations due to a poor HR control, in patients with AF under a rate-control strategy according to glomerular filtration rate (GFR).

Methods

The study cohort included 2804 AF patients under rate-control regime (BB or ND-CCB) between January 2014 and April 2020. The end point, determined by competing risk regression, was hospitalizations for AF with rapid ventricular response (RVR), slow ventricular response (SVR), and need for pacemaker.

Results

On multivariate analysis, there were no statistical differences between ND-CCB and BB for subjects with GFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (subdistribution heart rate [sHR] 0.850, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61–1.19; p = .442) and GFR 30–59 mL/min/1.73 m2 (sHR 1.242, 95% CI: 0.80–1.63; p = .333), while in patients with GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, ND-CCB therapy was associated with increased hospitalizations due to poor HR control (sHR 4.53, 95% CI: 1.19–17.18; p = .026).

Conclusion

In patients with GFR ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, the choice of ND-CCB or BB had no impact on hospitalizations due to poor HR control, while in GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2, a possible association was detected. The effects of these drugs on GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 would require further investigation.

Abstract Image

根据肾功能对心房颤动患者使用β-受体阻滞剂和钙通道阻滞剂进行比较
背景 控制心率是慢性肾脏病(CKD)患者心房颤动(AF)最常用的一线治疗策略。用于控制心率(HR)的主要药物包括β-受体阻滞剂(BB)和非二氢吡啶类钙通道阻滞剂(ND-CCB)。然而,有关这些药物在慢性肾脏病患者中的差异的公开研究却很少。 假设 本研究旨在根据肾小球滤过率(GFR)调查房颤患者在心率控制策略下因心率控制不佳而住院的差异。 方法 研究队列包括 2014 年 1 月至 2020 年 4 月期间接受速率控制制度(BB 或 ND-CCB)治疗的 2804 例房颤患者。研究终点通过竞争风险回归确定,即心房颤动住院率、快速心室反应(RVR)、慢速心室反应(SVR)和起搏器需求。 结果 经多变量分析,对于 GFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m2 的受试者,ND-CCB 和 BB 之间无统计学差异(亚分布心率 [sHR] 0.850,95% 置信区间 [CI]:而对于 GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 的患者,ND-CCB 治疗与心率控制不佳导致的住院次数增加有关(sHR 4.53,95% CI:1.19-17.18;p = .026)。 结论 在 GFR ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 的患者中,选择 ND-CCB 或 BB 对因心率控制不佳而导致的住院治疗没有影响,而在 GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 的患者中,发现可能存在关联。这些药物对 GFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 的影响还需要进一步研究。
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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