短效β受体阻滞剂治疗败血症相关心功能障碍的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Pub Date : 2025-09-09 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fcvm.2025.1665466
Min'an Zheng, Jin Wang, Pingchang Xie, Shijun Guo, Benjian Chen, Zhuogen He, Guoyan Yao
{"title":"短效β受体阻滞剂治疗败血症相关心功能障碍的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Min'an Zheng, Jin Wang, Pingchang Xie, Shijun Guo, Benjian Chen, Zhuogen He, Guoyan Yao","doi":"10.3389/fcvm.2025.1665466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The role of ultra-rapid β-blockers in sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction remains controversial, with conflicting evidence regarding mortality benefits and safety concerns in hemodynamically unstable patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study retrieved relevant reports on randomized controlled trials of ultra-rapid β-blockers conducted for adult patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction, up to and including the date of May 30, 2025, from the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase. Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality and adverse events; secondary outcomes included heart rate control and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 48 h. Random-effects models calculated risk ratios (RR) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies reported 28-day mortality, showing no significant reduction with ultra-rapid β-blockers (RR, 0.84, 95% CI: 0.67-1.06; <i>P</i> = 0.15; I² = 54%). Safety data from four studies indicated no increased adverse events (RR, 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82-1.33; <i>P</i> = 0.72; I² = 0%). Paradoxically, ultra-rapid β-blockers were associated with worse heart rate control (RR, 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.29; <i>P</i> = 0.05). MAP at 48 h showed no intergroup difference (SMD, -0.85, 95% CI: -2.24-0.54).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ultra-rapid β-blockers demonstrate an acceptable safety profile without compromising hemodynamic stability but fail to reduce 28-day mortality in sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction patients. The inferior heart rate control suggests potential physiological incompatibility in this population. Precision targeting based on adrenergic activity and cardiac phenotyping warrants investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12414,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"12 ","pages":"1665466"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12454437/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of short-acting β-blockers in patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Min'an Zheng, Jin Wang, Pingchang Xie, Shijun Guo, Benjian Chen, Zhuogen He, Guoyan Yao\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fcvm.2025.1665466\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The role of ultra-rapid β-blockers in sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction remains controversial, with conflicting evidence regarding mortality benefits and safety concerns in hemodynamically unstable patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study retrieved relevant reports on randomized controlled trials of ultra-rapid β-blockers conducted for adult patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction, up to and including the date of May 30, 2025, from the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase. Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality and adverse events; secondary outcomes included heart rate control and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 48 h. Random-effects models calculated risk ratios (RR) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies reported 28-day mortality, showing no significant reduction with ultra-rapid β-blockers (RR, 0.84, 95% CI: 0.67-1.06; <i>P</i> = 0.15; I² = 54%). Safety data from four studies indicated no increased adverse events (RR, 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82-1.33; <i>P</i> = 0.72; I² = 0%). Paradoxically, ultra-rapid β-blockers were associated with worse heart rate control (RR, 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.29; <i>P</i> = 0.05). MAP at 48 h showed no intergroup difference (SMD, -0.85, 95% CI: -2.24-0.54).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ultra-rapid β-blockers demonstrate an acceptable safety profile without compromising hemodynamic stability but fail to reduce 28-day mortality in sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction patients. The inferior heart rate control suggests potential physiological incompatibility in this population. Precision targeting based on adrenergic activity and cardiac phenotyping warrants investigation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"1665466\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12454437/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1665466\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2025.1665466","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:超快速β受体阻滞剂在脓毒症相关心功能障碍中的作用仍然存在争议,关于血流动力学不稳定患者的死亡率益处和安全性问题的证据相互矛盾。方法:本研究检索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和Embase数据库中截至2025年5月30日的成人败血症相关性心功能障碍患者使用超快速β受体阻滞剂的随机对照试验相关报道。主要结局是28天死亡率和不良事件;次要结局包括48小时心率控制和平均动脉压(MAP)。随机效应模型以95%置信区间(CI)计算风险比(RR)或标准化平均差(SMD)。采用I²统计量评估异质性。结果:8项研究报告了28天死亡率,显示超快速β受体阻滞剂没有显著降低(RR, 0.84, 95% CI: 0.67-1.06; P = 0.15; I²= 54%)。四项研究的安全性数据显示不良事件没有增加(RR, 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82-1.33; P = 0.72; I²= 0%)。矛盾的是,超快速β受体阻滞剂与较差的心率控制相关(RR, 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.29; P = 0.05)。48 h MAP组间无差异(SMD, -0.85, 95% CI: -2.24-0.54)。结论:超快速β受体阻滞剂在不影响血流动力学稳定性的情况下具有可接受的安全性,但不能降低败血症相关心功能障碍患者的28天死亡率。较差的心率控制提示该人群潜在的生理不相容。基于肾上腺素能活性和心脏表型的精确靶向值得研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Efficacy and safety of short-acting β-blockers in patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy and safety of short-acting β-blockers in patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy and safety of short-acting β-blockers in patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy and safety of short-acting β-blockers in patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: The role of ultra-rapid β-blockers in sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction remains controversial, with conflicting evidence regarding mortality benefits and safety concerns in hemodynamically unstable patients.

Methods: This study retrieved relevant reports on randomized controlled trials of ultra-rapid β-blockers conducted for adult patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction, up to and including the date of May 30, 2025, from the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase. Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality and adverse events; secondary outcomes included heart rate control and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 48 h. Random-effects models calculated risk ratios (RR) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics.

Results: Eight studies reported 28-day mortality, showing no significant reduction with ultra-rapid β-blockers (RR, 0.84, 95% CI: 0.67-1.06; P = 0.15; I² = 54%). Safety data from four studies indicated no increased adverse events (RR, 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82-1.33; P = 0.72; I² = 0%). Paradoxically, ultra-rapid β-blockers were associated with worse heart rate control (RR, 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00-2.29; P = 0.05). MAP at 48 h showed no intergroup difference (SMD, -0.85, 95% CI: -2.24-0.54).

Conclusion: ultra-rapid β-blockers demonstrate an acceptable safety profile without compromising hemodynamic stability but fail to reduce 28-day mortality in sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction patients. The inferior heart rate control suggests potential physiological incompatibility in this population. Precision targeting based on adrenergic activity and cardiac phenotyping warrants investigation.

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
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
3529
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers? Which frontiers? Where exactly are the frontiers of cardiovascular medicine? And who should be defining these frontiers? At Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine we believe it is worth being curious to foresee and explore beyond the current frontiers. In other words, we would like, through the articles published by our community journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, to anticipate the future of cardiovascular medicine, and thus better prevent cardiovascular disorders and improve therapeutic options and outcomes of our patients.
×
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