Rafael Alessandro Ferreira Gomes, Ludmila Cristina Camilo Furtado, Marcela Vasconcelos Montenegro, Dário Celestino Sobral Filho
{"title":"-受体阻滞剂用于保留射血分数的心肌梗死后:系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Rafael Alessandro Ferreira Gomes, Ludmila Cristina Camilo Furtado, Marcela Vasconcelos Montenegro, Dário Celestino Sobral Filho","doi":"10.21037/cdt-24-368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Myocardial infarction (MI) remains one of the main causes of mortality worldwide. Beta-blockers (BBs) are an essential component in the pharmacological treatment for MI. The long-term role of BB in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is not yet well established. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the impact of long-term use of BB on reducing mortality in patients with preserved LVEF after MI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study adhered to the guidelines outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration and the PRISMA statement. The predefined research protocol was registered in PROSPERO under the ID CRD42024554630. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed for studies published in English up to September 1, 2024, using the succeeding medical subject terms: 'myocardial infarction', 'preserved ejection fraction', and 'beta-blockers'. Data were extracted for: (I) death from any cause; (II) death from cardiovascular causes; (III) MI; (IV) stroke; and (V) hospitalization for heart failure (HF). The risk of bias of each article was analyzed using the tool risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2). These outcomes were compared using pooled hazard ratios (HRs) to maintain the integrity of time-to-event data from individual studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 85,607 patients from 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 65,790 (76.8%) were using BBs after MI with preserved ejection fraction. The use of BBs demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the global analysis of the included studies [HR =0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.98; P=0.03]. However, when performing sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of methodological biases and the robustness of the results, this reduction was no longer significant (HR =0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-1.02; P=0.07). Regarding reinfarction, there was no difference between BB users and non-users (HR =1.00; 95% CI: 0.92-1.09; P>0.99). Similarly, hospitalization for HF showed no significant variation between groups (HR =1.05; 95% CI: 0.89-1.24; P=0.55). Stroke incidence was also comparable between the groups, though with substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>=60%). Heterogeneity was otherwise low for the outcomes of reinfarction, and hospitalization for HF (I<sup>2</sup><25%). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences in outcomes when stratified by age, sex, hypertension, or diabetes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Long-term BB use in patients with preserved LVEF after MI did not decrease all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). There was also no identified reduction in hospitalizations for HF, MI, or stroke in the average follow-up of 3 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":9592,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy","volume":"15 2","pages":"398-413"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12082196/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beta-blockers in post-myocardial infarction with preserved ejection fraction: systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Rafael Alessandro Ferreira Gomes, Ludmila Cristina Camilo Furtado, Marcela Vasconcelos Montenegro, Dário Celestino Sobral Filho\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/cdt-24-368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Myocardial infarction (MI) remains one of the main causes of mortality worldwide. Beta-blockers (BBs) are an essential component in the pharmacological treatment for MI. The long-term role of BB in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is not yet well established. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the impact of long-term use of BB on reducing mortality in patients with preserved LVEF after MI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study adhered to the guidelines outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration and the PRISMA statement. The predefined research protocol was registered in PROSPERO under the ID CRD42024554630. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed for studies published in English up to September 1, 2024, using the succeeding medical subject terms: 'myocardial infarction', 'preserved ejection fraction', and 'beta-blockers'. Data were extracted for: (I) death from any cause; (II) death from cardiovascular causes; (III) MI; (IV) stroke; and (V) hospitalization for heart failure (HF). The risk of bias of each article was analyzed using the tool risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2). These outcomes were compared using pooled hazard ratios (HRs) to maintain the integrity of time-to-event data from individual studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 85,607 patients from 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 65,790 (76.8%) were using BBs after MI with preserved ejection fraction. The use of BBs demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the global analysis of the included studies [HR =0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.98; P=0.03]. However, when performing sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of methodological biases and the robustness of the results, this reduction was no longer significant (HR =0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-1.02; P=0.07). Regarding reinfarction, there was no difference between BB users and non-users (HR =1.00; 95% CI: 0.92-1.09; P>0.99). Similarly, hospitalization for HF showed no significant variation between groups (HR =1.05; 95% CI: 0.89-1.24; P=0.55). Stroke incidence was also comparable between the groups, though with substantial heterogeneity (I<sup>2</sup>=60%). Heterogeneity was otherwise low for the outcomes of reinfarction, and hospitalization for HF (I<sup>2</sup><25%). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences in outcomes when stratified by age, sex, hypertension, or diabetes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Long-term BB use in patients with preserved LVEF after MI did not decrease all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). There was also no identified reduction in hospitalizations for HF, MI, or stroke in the average follow-up of 3 years.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"398-413\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12082196/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/cdt-24-368\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/cdt-24-368","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Beta-blockers in post-myocardial infarction with preserved ejection fraction: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: Myocardial infarction (MI) remains one of the main causes of mortality worldwide. Beta-blockers (BBs) are an essential component in the pharmacological treatment for MI. The long-term role of BB in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is not yet well established. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize the impact of long-term use of BB on reducing mortality in patients with preserved LVEF after MI.
Methods: This study adhered to the guidelines outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration and the PRISMA statement. The predefined research protocol was registered in PROSPERO under the ID CRD42024554630. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PubMed for studies published in English up to September 1, 2024, using the succeeding medical subject terms: 'myocardial infarction', 'preserved ejection fraction', and 'beta-blockers'. Data were extracted for: (I) death from any cause; (II) death from cardiovascular causes; (III) MI; (IV) stroke; and (V) hospitalization for heart failure (HF). The risk of bias of each article was analyzed using the tool risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2). These outcomes were compared using pooled hazard ratios (HRs) to maintain the integrity of time-to-event data from individual studies.
Results: A total of 85,607 patients from 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis, of whom 65,790 (76.8%) were using BBs after MI with preserved ejection fraction. The use of BBs demonstrated a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in the global analysis of the included studies [HR =0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.98; P=0.03]. However, when performing sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of methodological biases and the robustness of the results, this reduction was no longer significant (HR =0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-1.02; P=0.07). Regarding reinfarction, there was no difference between BB users and non-users (HR =1.00; 95% CI: 0.92-1.09; P>0.99). Similarly, hospitalization for HF showed no significant variation between groups (HR =1.05; 95% CI: 0.89-1.24; P=0.55). Stroke incidence was also comparable between the groups, though with substantial heterogeneity (I2=60%). Heterogeneity was otherwise low for the outcomes of reinfarction, and hospitalization for HF (I2<25%). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences in outcomes when stratified by age, sex, hypertension, or diabetes.
Conclusions: Long-term BB use in patients with preserved LVEF after MI did not decrease all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). There was also no identified reduction in hospitalizations for HF, MI, or stroke in the average follow-up of 3 years.
期刊介绍:
The journal ''Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy'' (Print ISSN: 2223-3652; Online ISSN: 2223-3660) accepts basic and clinical science submissions related to Cardiovascular Medicine and Surgery. The mission of the journal is the rapid exchange of scientific information between clinicians and scientists worldwide. To reach this goal, the journal will focus on novel media, using a web-based, digital format in addition to traditional print-version. This includes on-line submission, review, publication, and distribution. The digital format will also allow submission of extensive supporting visual material, both images and video. The website www.thecdt.org will serve as the central hub and also allow posting of comments and on-line discussion. The web-site of the journal will be linked to a number of international web-sites (e.g. www.dxy.cn), which will significantly expand the distribution of its contents.