兰地洛尔和艾司洛尔在危重患者中的疗效和安全性比较:一项倾向评分匹配研究。

IF 5.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Xiang Si, Hao Yuan, Rui Shi, Wenliang Song, Jiayan Guo, Jinlong Jiang, Tao Yang, Xiaoxun Ma, Huiming Wang, Minying Chen, Jianfeng Wu, Xiangdong Guan, Xavier Monnet
{"title":"兰地洛尔和艾司洛尔在危重患者中的疗效和安全性比较:一项倾向评分匹配研究。","authors":"Xiang Si, Hao Yuan, Rui Shi, Wenliang Song, Jiayan Guo, Jinlong Jiang, Tao Yang, Xiaoxun Ma, Huiming Wang, Minying Chen, Jianfeng Wu, Xiangdong Guan, Xavier Monnet","doi":"10.1186/s13613-024-01418-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Excessive tachycardia is associated with impaired hemodynamics and worse outcome in critically ill patients. Previous studies suggested beneficial effect of β-blockers administration in ICU patients, including those with septic shock. However, comparisons in ICU settings are lacking. Our study aims to compare Landiolol and Esmolol regarding heart rate control and hemodynamic variables in general ICU patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, observational study was conducted in a 56-bed ICU at a university hospital. A propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance baseline differences. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to compare heart rate between two drugs. The primary outcome was heart rate control, while secondary outcomes included hemodynamic response, hospital length of stay (HLOS) and ICU length of stay (ICULOS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From June 2016 to December 2022, 438 patients were included after PSM, (292 in the Esmolol group and 146 the in Landiolol group). Baseline heart rate was similar between groups (Landiolol:120.0 [110.2, 131.0] bpm vs. Esmolol:120.0 [111.0, 129.0] bpm, p = 0.925). During 72 h. of β-blocker infusion, Landiolol reduced heart rate by 4.7 (1.3, 8.1) bpm, more than Esmolol (p = 0.007), while preserving a comparable proportion of patients able to stabilize vasopressor doses within the first 24 h. (82.9 vs. 80.8%, respectively, p = 0.596). Norepinephrine doses and lactate levels were similar between groups over 72 h., while the Landiolol group exhibited notably higher minimal ScvO<sub>2</sub> levels (72% [63%, 78%] vs 68% [55%, 73%], respectively, p = 0.006) and a lower maximal PCO2 gap compared to the Esmolol group (7.0 [6.0, 9.0] vs. 8.0 [6.0, 10.0] mmHg, respectively, p = 0.040). Patients in the Landiolol group were observed to experience shorter HLOS than patients in the Esmolol group (26.5 [13.0, 42.0] vs 30.0 [17.0, 47.2] days, respectively, p = 0.044) and ICULOS (4.9 [2.8, 10.0] vs.6.7 [3.4, 13.1] days, respectively, p = 0.011).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Landiolol provides superior heart rate control in critically ill patients with tachycardia compared to Esmolol, without increasing vasopressor requirements during the first 24 h. Findings from ScvO<sub>2</sub> levels and PCO<sub>2</sub> gap suggest that Landiolol may exert less impact on cardiac output than Esmolol. Further studies, incorporating comprehensive hemodynamic monitoring, are warranted to clarify the clinical implications of heart rate control with β-blockers in ICU patients with tachycardia.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":"15 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11725550/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the efficacy and safety of Landiolol and Esmolol in critically ill patients: a propensity score-matched study.\",\"authors\":\"Xiang Si, Hao Yuan, Rui Shi, Wenliang Song, Jiayan Guo, Jinlong Jiang, Tao Yang, Xiaoxun Ma, Huiming Wang, Minying Chen, Jianfeng Wu, Xiangdong Guan, Xavier Monnet\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13613-024-01418-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Excessive tachycardia is associated with impaired hemodynamics and worse outcome in critically ill patients. Previous studies suggested beneficial effect of β-blockers administration in ICU patients, including those with septic shock. However, comparisons in ICU settings are lacking. Our study aims to compare Landiolol and Esmolol regarding heart rate control and hemodynamic variables in general ICU patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, observational study was conducted in a 56-bed ICU at a university hospital. A propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance baseline differences. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to compare heart rate between two drugs. The primary outcome was heart rate control, while secondary outcomes included hemodynamic response, hospital length of stay (HLOS) and ICU length of stay (ICULOS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From June 2016 to December 2022, 438 patients were included after PSM, (292 in the Esmolol group and 146 the in Landiolol group). Baseline heart rate was similar between groups (Landiolol:120.0 [110.2, 131.0] bpm vs. Esmolol:120.0 [111.0, 129.0] bpm, p = 0.925). During 72 h. of β-blocker infusion, Landiolol reduced heart rate by 4.7 (1.3, 8.1) bpm, more than Esmolol (p = 0.007), while preserving a comparable proportion of patients able to stabilize vasopressor doses within the first 24 h. (82.9 vs. 80.8%, respectively, p = 0.596). Norepinephrine doses and lactate levels were similar between groups over 72 h., while the Landiolol group exhibited notably higher minimal ScvO<sub>2</sub> levels (72% [63%, 78%] vs 68% [55%, 73%], respectively, p = 0.006) and a lower maximal PCO2 gap compared to the Esmolol group (7.0 [6.0, 9.0] vs. 8.0 [6.0, 10.0] mmHg, respectively, p = 0.040). Patients in the Landiolol group were observed to experience shorter HLOS than patients in the Esmolol group (26.5 [13.0, 42.0] vs 30.0 [17.0, 47.2] days, respectively, p = 0.044) and ICULOS (4.9 [2.8, 10.0] vs.6.7 [3.4, 13.1] days, respectively, p = 0.011).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Landiolol provides superior heart rate control in critically ill patients with tachycardia compared to Esmolol, without increasing vasopressor requirements during the first 24 h. Findings from ScvO<sub>2</sub> levels and PCO<sub>2</sub> gap suggest that Landiolol may exert less impact on cardiac output than Esmolol. Further studies, incorporating comprehensive hemodynamic monitoring, are warranted to clarify the clinical implications of heart rate control with β-blockers in ICU patients with tachycardia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7966,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11725550/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Intensive Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01418-8\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01418-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:过度心动过速与危重患者血流动力学受损和预后恶化有关。先前的研究表明β受体阻滞剂对ICU患者,包括脓毒性休克患者有益。然而,缺乏ICU环境的比较。我们的研究旨在比较兰地洛尔和艾司洛尔对普通ICU患者心率控制和血流动力学变量的影响。方法:本回顾性观察性研究在一所大学医院56张床位的ICU进行。采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)来平衡基线差异。采用广义估计方程(GEE)比较两种药物的心率。主要结局是心率控制,次要结局包括血流动力学反应、住院时间(HLOS)和ICU住院时间(ICULOS)。结果:2016年6月至2022年12月,纳入PSM患者438例,其中艾司洛尔组292例,兰地洛尔组146例。各组间基线心率相似(兰地洛尔:120.0 [110.2,131.0]bpm vs艾司洛尔:120.0 [111.0,129.0]bpm, p = 0.925)。在β受体阻滞剂输注72小时内,兰地洛尔比艾司洛尔降低了4.7 (1.3,8.1)bpm的心率(p = 0.007),同时保留了相当比例的患者能够在前24小时内稳定血管加压剂剂量(分别为82.9比80.8%,p = 0.596)。去甲肾上腺素剂量和乳酸水平在72小时内各组之间相似,而兰地洛尔组的最小ScvO2水平明显高于艾司洛尔组(分别为72%[63%,78%]对68% [55%,73%],p = 0.006),最大PCO2差距低于艾司洛尔组(分别为7.0[6.0,9.0]对8.0 [6.0,10.0]mmHg, p = 0.040)。兰地洛尔组患者的HLOS比艾司洛尔组患者短(分别为26.5[13.0,42.0]天和30.0[17.0,47.2]天,p = 0.044), ICULOS分别为4.9[2.8,10.0]天和6.7[3.4,13.1]天,p = 0.011)。结论:与艾司洛尔相比,兰地洛尔对危重性心动过速患者的心率控制效果更好,而且在最初24小时内不会增加血管加压药的需求。ScvO2水平和PCO2间隙的研究结果表明,兰地洛尔对心输出量的影响可能小于艾司洛尔。进一步的研究,包括全面的血流动力学监测,有必要阐明β受体阻滞剂对ICU心动过速患者心率控制的临床意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of Landiolol and Esmolol in critically ill patients: a propensity score-matched study.

Background: Excessive tachycardia is associated with impaired hemodynamics and worse outcome in critically ill patients. Previous studies suggested beneficial effect of β-blockers administration in ICU patients, including those with septic shock. However, comparisons in ICU settings are lacking. Our study aims to compare Landiolol and Esmolol regarding heart rate control and hemodynamic variables in general ICU patients.

Methods: This retrospective, observational study was conducted in a 56-bed ICU at a university hospital. A propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance baseline differences. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to compare heart rate between two drugs. The primary outcome was heart rate control, while secondary outcomes included hemodynamic response, hospital length of stay (HLOS) and ICU length of stay (ICULOS).

Results: From June 2016 to December 2022, 438 patients were included after PSM, (292 in the Esmolol group and 146 the in Landiolol group). Baseline heart rate was similar between groups (Landiolol:120.0 [110.2, 131.0] bpm vs. Esmolol:120.0 [111.0, 129.0] bpm, p = 0.925). During 72 h. of β-blocker infusion, Landiolol reduced heart rate by 4.7 (1.3, 8.1) bpm, more than Esmolol (p = 0.007), while preserving a comparable proportion of patients able to stabilize vasopressor doses within the first 24 h. (82.9 vs. 80.8%, respectively, p = 0.596). Norepinephrine doses and lactate levels were similar between groups over 72 h., while the Landiolol group exhibited notably higher minimal ScvO2 levels (72% [63%, 78%] vs 68% [55%, 73%], respectively, p = 0.006) and a lower maximal PCO2 gap compared to the Esmolol group (7.0 [6.0, 9.0] vs. 8.0 [6.0, 10.0] mmHg, respectively, p = 0.040). Patients in the Landiolol group were observed to experience shorter HLOS than patients in the Esmolol group (26.5 [13.0, 42.0] vs 30.0 [17.0, 47.2] days, respectively, p = 0.044) and ICULOS (4.9 [2.8, 10.0] vs.6.7 [3.4, 13.1] days, respectively, p = 0.011).

Conclusion: Landiolol provides superior heart rate control in critically ill patients with tachycardia compared to Esmolol, without increasing vasopressor requirements during the first 24 h. Findings from ScvO2 levels and PCO2 gap suggest that Landiolol may exert less impact on cardiac output than Esmolol. Further studies, incorporating comprehensive hemodynamic monitoring, are warranted to clarify the clinical implications of heart rate control with β-blockers in ICU patients with tachycardia.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
×
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