心肌梗死后未降低射血分数的-受体阻滞剂保留或停药对缺血事件的影响:REBOOT试验的事后分析

IF 9.5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Xavier Rossello, Pedro L Sánchez, Ruth Owen, Sergio Raposeiras-Roubín, Fabrizio Poletti, José A Barrabés, Manuel Anguita, Alberto Dominguez-Rodriguez, Mario Lombardi, Stuart Pocock, Pablo Díez-Villanueva, Miguel Vives-Borrás, María J Rollán, Simona D'Orazio, Noemí Escalera, Ana Isabel-Santos, Andrea Chiampan, Oriol de Diego, María López-Benito, Eduardo Moreno, Luis M Rincón-Díaz, Hugo París, Roberto Latini, Valentín Fuster, Borja Ibanez
{"title":"心肌梗死后未降低射血分数的-受体阻滞剂保留或停药对缺血事件的影响:REBOOT试验的事后分析","authors":"Xavier Rossello, Pedro L Sánchez, Ruth Owen, Sergio Raposeiras-Roubín, Fabrizio Poletti, José A Barrabés, Manuel Anguita, Alberto Dominguez-Rodriguez, Mario Lombardi, Stuart Pocock, Pablo Díez-Villanueva, Miguel Vives-Borrás, María J Rollán, Simona D'Orazio, Noemí Escalera, Ana Isabel-Santos, Andrea Chiampan, Oriol de Diego, María López-Benito, Eduardo Moreno, Luis M Rincón-Díaz, Hugo París, Roberto Latini, Valentín Fuster, Borja Ibanez","doi":"10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current guidelines recommend beta blockers after myocardial infarction (MI) regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), aiming to reduce reinfarction and ventricular arrhythmias. However, recent trials have challenged this practice in patients without reduced LVEF. Whether beta blocker withdrawal in these patients increases short-term or recurrent ischaemic events remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to evaluate the short-term ischaemic safety of beta blocker withholding or withdrawal at hospital discharge in patients with MI and LVEF >40% and to determine the effect of beta blocker therapy on a broad composite ischaemic endpoint.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a post hoc analysis of the REBOOT trial, in which patients with MI and LVEF >40% were randomised to beta blocker therapy or no beta blocker at discharge. The incidence of short-term (3-month) and recurrent ischaemic events (a composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or unplanned revascularisation) was assessed overall and according to prior beta blocker use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the 8,438 patients in the intention-to-treat population of the trial, information regarding beta blocker history was available for 8,401. Of these, 12.1% were on chronic beta blocker therapy before MI. Overall, withholding or withdrawing beta blockers was not associated with increased short-term ischaemic risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.72). Over a median follow-up of 3.7 years, there were no differences in recurrent ischaemic events between groups (HR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82-1.16), nor significant interactions with prior beta blocker therapy. In patients who were on a beta blocker before the index MI, randomisation to no beta blocker (withdrawal) was not associated with an increased risk of ischaemic events during trial follow-up (composite ischaemic endpoint HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.34).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with MI and LVEF >40%, beta blocker withholding or withdrawal at discharge was not associated with increased short-term or recurrent ischaemic events, supporting the safety of this strategy in contemporary clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":54378,"journal":{"name":"Eurointervention","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of beta blocker withholding or withdrawal after myocardial infarction without reduced ejection fraction on ischaemic events: a post hoc analysis from the REBOOT trial.\",\"authors\":\"Xavier Rossello, Pedro L Sánchez, Ruth Owen, Sergio Raposeiras-Roubín, Fabrizio Poletti, José A Barrabés, Manuel Anguita, Alberto Dominguez-Rodriguez, Mario Lombardi, Stuart Pocock, Pablo Díez-Villanueva, Miguel Vives-Borrás, María J Rollán, Simona D'Orazio, Noemí Escalera, Ana Isabel-Santos, Andrea Chiampan, Oriol de Diego, María López-Benito, Eduardo Moreno, Luis M Rincón-Díaz, Hugo París, Roberto Latini, Valentín Fuster, Borja Ibanez\",\"doi\":\"10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00826\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current guidelines recommend beta blockers after myocardial infarction (MI) regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), aiming to reduce reinfarction and ventricular arrhythmias. However, recent trials have challenged this practice in patients without reduced LVEF. Whether beta blocker withdrawal in these patients increases short-term or recurrent ischaemic events remains uncertain.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We aimed to evaluate the short-term ischaemic safety of beta blocker withholding or withdrawal at hospital discharge in patients with MI and LVEF >40% and to determine the effect of beta blocker therapy on a broad composite ischaemic endpoint.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a post hoc analysis of the REBOOT trial, in which patients with MI and LVEF >40% were randomised to beta blocker therapy or no beta blocker at discharge. The incidence of short-term (3-month) and recurrent ischaemic events (a composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or unplanned revascularisation) was assessed overall and according to prior beta blocker use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the 8,438 patients in the intention-to-treat population of the trial, information regarding beta blocker history was available for 8,401. Of these, 12.1% were on chronic beta blocker therapy before MI. Overall, withholding or withdrawing beta blockers was not associated with increased short-term ischaemic risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.72). Over a median follow-up of 3.7 years, there were no differences in recurrent ischaemic events between groups (HR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82-1.16), nor significant interactions with prior beta blocker therapy. In patients who were on a beta blocker before the index MI, randomisation to no beta blocker (withdrawal) was not associated with an increased risk of ischaemic events during trial follow-up (composite ischaemic endpoint HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.34).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with MI and LVEF >40%, beta blocker withholding or withdrawal at discharge was not associated with increased short-term or recurrent ischaemic events, supporting the safety of this strategy in contemporary clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Eurointervention\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Eurointervention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00826\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Eurointervention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00826","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前的指南推荐在心肌梗死(MI)后使用-受体阻滞剂,无论左心室射血分数(LVEF)如何,旨在减少再梗死和室性心律失常。然而,最近的试验在没有降低LVEF的患者中对这种做法提出了挑战。这些患者停用受体阻滞剂是否会增加短期或复发性缺血事件仍不确定。目的:我们旨在评估心肌梗死和LVEF低于40%的患者出院时β受体阻滞剂保留或停药的短期缺血安全性,并确定β受体阻滞剂治疗对广泛复合缺血终点的影响。方法:这是对REBOOT试验的事后分析,在该试验中,心肌梗死和LVEF患者在出院时被随机分配到-受体阻滞剂治疗组或不接受-受体阻滞剂治疗组。短期(3个月)和复发性缺血事件(心源性死亡、再梗死、持续性室性心动过速/纤颤、复苏性心脏骤停或计划外血运重建)的发生率根据先前使用β受体阻滞剂进行总体评估。结果:在该试验意向治疗人群中的8,438例患者中,有8,401例患者可获得β受体阻滞剂病史信息。其中,12.1%的患者在心肌梗死前接受了慢性受体阻滞剂治疗。总体而言,停用或停用受体阻滞剂与短期缺血风险增加无关(风险比[HR] 1.13, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.74-1.72)。在中位随访3.7年期间,两组复发性缺血事件无差异(HR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82-1.16),与既往受体阻滞剂治疗无显著相互作用。在心肌梗塞指数之前服用受体阻滞剂的患者中,随机分配到不服用受体阻滞剂(停药)与试验随访期间缺血性事件风险增加无关(综合缺血终点HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.34)。结论:在心肌梗死和LVEF bb0 40%的患者中,出院时β受体阻滞剂的保留或停药与短期或复发性缺血事件的增加无关,支持该策略在当代临床实践中的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of beta blocker withholding or withdrawal after myocardial infarction without reduced ejection fraction on ischaemic events: a post hoc analysis from the REBOOT trial.

Background: Current guidelines recommend beta blockers after myocardial infarction (MI) regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), aiming to reduce reinfarction and ventricular arrhythmias. However, recent trials have challenged this practice in patients without reduced LVEF. Whether beta blocker withdrawal in these patients increases short-term or recurrent ischaemic events remains uncertain.

Aims: We aimed to evaluate the short-term ischaemic safety of beta blocker withholding or withdrawal at hospital discharge in patients with MI and LVEF >40% and to determine the effect of beta blocker therapy on a broad composite ischaemic endpoint.

Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the REBOOT trial, in which patients with MI and LVEF >40% were randomised to beta blocker therapy or no beta blocker at discharge. The incidence of short-term (3-month) and recurrent ischaemic events (a composite of cardiac death, reinfarction, sustained ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or unplanned revascularisation) was assessed overall and according to prior beta blocker use.

Results: From the 8,438 patients in the intention-to-treat population of the trial, information regarding beta blocker history was available for 8,401. Of these, 12.1% were on chronic beta blocker therapy before MI. Overall, withholding or withdrawing beta blockers was not associated with increased short-term ischaemic risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-1.72). Over a median follow-up of 3.7 years, there were no differences in recurrent ischaemic events between groups (HR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82-1.16), nor significant interactions with prior beta blocker therapy. In patients who were on a beta blocker before the index MI, randomisation to no beta blocker (withdrawal) was not associated with an increased risk of ischaemic events during trial follow-up (composite ischaemic endpoint HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.64-1.34).

Conclusions: In patients with MI and LVEF >40%, beta blocker withholding or withdrawal at discharge was not associated with increased short-term or recurrent ischaemic events, supporting the safety of this strategy in contemporary clinical practice.

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
Eurointervention
Eurointervention CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
380
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: EuroIntervention Journal is an international, English language, peer-reviewed journal whose aim is to create a community of high quality research and education in the field of percutaneous and surgical cardiovascular interventions.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信