Is the evidence base for post-myocardial infarction beta-blockers outdated?

Norwegian

Jan Erik Otterstad, John Munkhaugen, Vidar de Bourg Ruddox, Jon Haffner, Dag S. Thelle

See All Articles

Jan Erik Otterstad

Jan Erik Otterstad (born 1944) MD, PhD, specialist in internal medicine and cardiology. Dr Otterstad is a senior consultant and heads the Heart Research Centre at Vestfold Hospital. He is Emeritus Fellow of the European Society of Cardiology.

The author has completed the ICMJE form and reports no conflicts of interest.

See All Articles

John Munkhaugen

John Munkhaugen (born 1983) MD, PhD, acting senior consultant at the Department of Internal Medicine, Drammen Hospital. He is a trainee cardiologist, post-doctoral researcher in Vestre Viken and project manager for the NOR-COR (NORwegian CORonary Prevention) study, an interdisciplinary research project on secondary prophylaxis and follow-up of coronary heart disease at Drammen Hospital and Vestfold Hospital in collaboration with the University of Oslo.

The author has completed the ICMJE form and reports no conflicts of interest.

See All Articles

Vidar de Bourg Ruddox

Vidar de Bourg Ruddox (born 1976) MD, PhD, acting senior consultant at the Cardiac Section, Clinical Medicine, Vestfold Hospital. He is a trainee cardiologist and post-doctoral researcher.

The author has completed the ICMJE form and reports no conflicts of interest.

Email: vidar.ruddox@siv.no

See All Articles

Jon Haffner

Jon Haffner (born 1940) MD, PhD, specialist in general surgery and gastroenterological surgery and Professor Emeritus.

The author has completed the ICMJE form and reports no conflicts of interest.

See All Articles

Dag S. Thelle

Dag S. Thelle (born 1942) Specialist in internal medicine and Professor Emeritus at the Department of Biostatistics, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, and Sahlgrenska Akademin, Gothenburg University. He is a guest researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and co-editor of the European Journal of Epidemiology.

The author has completed the ICMJE form and reports no conflicts of interest.

Article

Post-myocardial infarction beta-blocker therapy is based on studies from the early 1980s. Since then, the diagnostics for myocardial infarction have become more sensitive, revascularisation has improved survival and there are now improved secondary prophylaxis drugs. We therefore believe it is time for new research, and that the indication for routine beta-blocker therapy following myocardial infarction should be reviewed.

It was pointed out as early as in 2007 that (1) post-myocardial infarction beta-blocker therapy is based on three studies from 1981 – 1982 (2) – (4) (Table 1). The clinical manifestations of myocardial infarction are the same now as in the early 1980s, but the diagnostics, treatment and patient population have all changed. The introduction of high-sensitivity troponin assays has changed the diagnostics. The pathogenesis and therapeutic effect may both be different now from in the past, because the relative distribution of various causal factors has changed. A patient with acute myocardial infarction in the 1970s was often a smoker, slender and with high total cholesterol. In 2015, the patient is an overweight, pre-diabetic non-smoker with low HDL cholesterol and high triglyceride levels. In the past, left-ventricular remodelling after severe myocardial infarction was a major problem and involved loss of contractile tissue followed by dilation of the left ventricle, a reduced ejection fraction and heart failure development. Today such infarctions are less common, as most patients are revascularised early and survive the infarction with a well preserved heart function. Are we actually looking at the same disease?

Table 1

Long-term studies of post-infarction beta-blocker therapy. GMT = Gothenburg Metoprolol Trial; NTS = Norwegian Timolol Study; BHAT = The β-blocker Heart Attack Trial; LVEF = Left ventricular ejection fraction ; n.a. = not available; mo. = months CAPRICORN = Carvedilol Post-infarct Survival Control in LV dysfunction study; RR = Relative risk

	GMT, n = 1 395 from 1981 (3)	NTS, n = 1 884 from 1981 (2)	BHAT, n = 3 838 from 1982 (4)	CAPRICORN, n = 1 959 from 2001 Patients with LVEF < 40 % (5)
Therapy/follow-up
Drug	Metoprolol	Timolol	Propranolol	Carvedilol
Time from infarction to inclusion (average)	< 48 hours (11 ± 3)	6 – 27 days (14)	5 – 12 days (14)	3 – 21 days (n.a.)
Initially intravenously	15 mg on admission	no	no	no
Post-infarction target dose	100 mg × 2	10 mg × 2	60 – 80 mg × 3¹	25 mg × 2
Time to target dose	2 days	2 days	2 days	4 – 6 weeks
Average follow-up (min–max)	3 mo. (n.a.)	17 mo. (12 – 33)	25 mo. (n.a.)	15 mo. (n.a.)
Concomitant therapy
Thrombolysis/primary PCI	no	no	no	45 %
Acetyl salicylic acid	n.a.	n.a.	22 %	86 %
Anticoagulation	n.a.	n.a.	9 %	n.a.
ACE inhibitor	no	no	no	98 %
Statin	no	no	no	n.a.
Mortality reduction	RR 36 % (p < 0.03)	RR 45 % (p < 0.001)	RR 27 % (p < 0.005)	HR 0.77 (0.60 – 0.98) (p = 0.03)
[i]

[i] ¹ Patients with serum propranolol ≥ 20 mg/l at 80 mg × 3 had the dose reduced to 60 mg × 3 at 4-week visit (82 %)

The efficacy of any treatment depends on the point of departure in relation to the maximum that can be achieved, and the lower limit for a clinically relevant result. Reduced efficacy may be due to the treatment only working when there is a certain relative distribution of causal factors, or to the factors that are affected being already almost maximally reduced.

New prevalence data show that a large number of coronary patients remain on beta-blocker therapy for several years after an infarction. This applies to both genders of all ages, with and without heart failure.

In the NOR-COR Study for Coronary Prevention, the use of beta-blockers after myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or aortocoronary bypass surgery was registered on discharge and after a follow-up period of 1.7 years (5) (Table 2). The figures for prescription of beta-blockers were 85 % on discharge and 72 % after 1.7 years, which correspond to figures from the big European registry survey EUROASPIRE IV (6). Is the evidence base for routine beta-blocker treatment following myocardial infarction good enough?

Table 2

Percentage of patients in the NOR-COR study who were using beta-blockers on discharge and at the follow-up visit. NSTEMI = non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, STEMI = ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

	Discharge, %¹	Follow-up, %¹
All, N = 1 127	85	72
Gender
Men, n = 890	85	72
Women, n = 237	84	73
Age, years
< 60, n = 364	85	71
60 – 75, n = 625	85	73
> 75, n = 138	86	74
Time since index hospitalisation
8 weeks – 6 mo., n = 233		72
6 – 12 mo., n = 242		74
12 – 24 mo., n = 347		74
24 – 36 mo., n = 305		71
Diagnosis on discharge
NSTEMI, n = 561	83	70
STEMI, n = 335	89²	74
Stable coronary disease, n = 231	82	75
Angiography during index hospitalisation
Open vessels/wall changes, n = 69	74²	61²
Single-vessel disease, n = 622	84	72
Multiple-vessel disease, n = 435	88	75
Revascularisation during index hospitalisation
Percutaneous coronary intervention, n = 748	84	72
Aortocoronary bypass, n = 147	91²	81²
Patients without heart failure
All, N = 979	83	70
Drammen Hospital, n = 496	86²	77³
Vestfold Hospital, n = 483	81	63
Percutaneous coronary intervention, n = 816	83	69
Aortocoronary bypass, n = 126	90²	79²
[i]

[i] ¹ All p values for differences at time of discharge versus at time of inclusion were significant (< 0.001)

² Differences in sub-groups at time of discharge and time of inclusion: p < 0.05

³ Differences in sub-groups at time of discharge and time of inclusion: p < 0.01

What do new studies indicate?

What do new studies indicate?

A single literature search revealed no major studies with follow-up of ≥ three months of patients with a normal left ventricular ejection fraction.

The Clopidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial (COMMIT) (n = 45 852 patients, metoprolol versus placebo within 24 hours, four-week follow-up) revealed no effect on total mortality, and a reduction of reinfarction and ventricular fibrillation was counterbalanced by increased risk of cardiogenic shock (7). Nor have beta-blockers been found to influence cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary disease (8).

Two new registry studies have brought the problem to the fore:

In the biggest study, based on the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry, 44 708 patients from general practice were included in the period 2003 – 2004 (9) (Table 3). The patients were from 44 countries worldwide, and 31 % had suffered myocardial infarction. After a follow-up period of 3.6 years, there was no difference in cardiovascular mortality between patients with and without beta-blockers when propensity score matching was used. In this analysis, attempts are made retrospectively to eliminate bias factors in the two groups (Table 4).

Table 3

Beta-blocker after myocardial infarction. Two registry studies. n.a. = not available; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention

	REACH: infarction 100 % (9)				CORONOR: infarction 62 % (10)
	β-blocker +	β-blocker –	p		β-blocker +	β-blocker –	p
n ( %)	9 451 (67)	4 592 (33)	< 0.001		3 320 (79)	864 (21)	< 0.001
Age, average (SD)	66 (10)	69 (10)	< 0.001		66 (12)	69 (11)	< 0.001
Men, %	76	78	n.s.		78	78	n.s.
Concomitant therapy, %
Acetyl salicylic acid	81	73	< 0.001		n.a.	n.a.
Other platelet inhibitors	27	25	0.02		n.a.	n.a.
Platelet inhibitors combined	n.a.	n.a.			97	93	< 0.001
Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors	57	46	< 0.001		62	49	< 0.001
Angiotensin-2 blockers	17	21	< 0.001		n.a.	n.a.
Statins	82	69	< 0.001		93	89	< 0.001
Previous PCI, %	n.a.	n.a.			79	74	n.s.
Previous aortocoronary bypass	n.a.	n.a.			21	21	n.s.
[i]

[i] ¹ only specified p value for previous revascularisation: < 0.001

Table 4

Propensity score analysis to correct for confounding with and without beta-blockers

	REACH (9)			CORONOR (10)
	β-blocker +	β-blocker ÷	p¹	β-blocker +	β-blocker ÷	p¹
n (%)	3 379	3 379		839	839
Age, average (SD), years	69 (10)	69 (10)		69 (11)	69 (11)
Men, %	75	75		79	78
Suffered infarction, %	100	100		49	50
Concomitant therapy, %
Acetyl salicylic acid	76	76		n.a.	n.a.
Another platelet inhibitor	23	24		n.a.	n.a.
Platelet inhibitors combined	n.a.	n.a.		93	93
Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors	49	48		48	49
Angiotensin-2 blockers	21	20		n.a.	n.a.
Statins	74	75		89	89
Previous percutaneous coronary intervention	n.a.	n.a.		84	85
Previous aortocoronary bypass	n.a.	n.a.		21	21
Follow-up, average, years	3.6	3.6		2.0	2.0
Cardiovascular mortality, n (%)	273 (8.0)	291 (8.6)		13 (1.5)²	32 (3.8)²	n.a.
Annual rate, %	2.2	2.4		0.8	1.9	n.a.
Hazard rate for cardiovascular mortality
With β-blockers (95 % CI)	0.91 (0.76 – 1.09)			0.43 (0.22 – 0.82)		0.011
[i]

[i] ¹ No values given when differences were not significant

² Figures extrapolated from Kaplan-Meyer curves for cumulative cardiovascular mortality in the two groups

CORonariens stables en region NORd-Pas-de-Calais (the CORONOR study) included 4 184 patients from northern France, 2 612 (62 %) of whom had suffered infarctions (10). The follow-up time was two years, and a statistically significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality was seen. There were few events, and type 2 errors therefore cannot be excluded. The same statistical method was used as for the study based on REACH.

The CORONOR and REACH studies are accompanied by commentaries by, respectively, Floyd (11) and Danchin & Laurent (12), who examine some weaknesses of the studies. Non-beta-blocker users may have stopped because of side effects or because of contraindications that affected their prognosis. The type of beta-blocker and indication for treatment are not known, and no information is provided about left ventricular function. The conclusion is that more research is needed.

A meta-analysis of randomised, controlled studies included 102 003 patients from 60 studies, 12 of which were published in the revascularisation period (1991 – 2013) (13). Beta-blockers had no effect on mortality, whereas the 30-day incidence of reinfarction and angina were reduced at the expense of increased incidence of heart failure and cardiogenic shock. The other 48 studies were published during the pre-revascularisation period (1966 – 1999), when beta-blockers reduced mortality, infarction and angina alike.

Another, recent meta-analysis included 10 observational studies of treatment with beta-blockers after PCI-treated infarction (14). Of the patients in this analysis, 25 168 had been given beta-blockers and 15 705 had not. The primary endpoint was total mortality. In adjusted analyses, this was reduced with beta-blockers, but the effect was only present in study populations with a reduced ejection fraction and low consumption of other medicinal secondary prophylaxis. There was no effect on cardiac mortality, reinfarction or hospitalisations for heart failure. The authors conclude that there is now no evidence for routine beta-blocker therapy for sufferers of myocardial infarction, and that new studies are necessary for further clarification.

International guidelines

International guidelines

The European guidelines of 2013 on treatment of stable coronary disease argue that the efficacy of beta-blockers is uncertain because the studies on post-infarction patients were conducted prior to the implementation of other secondary prophylactic therapy (15).

That same year it was pointed out in similar guidelines for ST elevation infarction that long-term beta-blocker therapy is well established, but that the uncertainties referred to above were recognised (16).

In the 2015 guidelines for non-ST-elevation infarction, early beta-blocker therapy is recommended for patients with persistent ischaemic symptoms, provided this is not contraindicated (17). Patients without severe heart failure can be offered long-term therapy.

In the American guidelines of 2012, it is pointed out that beta-blockers are efficacious in patients who have suffered myocardial infarction in the last three years and/or have left ventricular dysfunction (18).

Adverse effects

Adverse effects

Frequently reported adverse effects of beta-blockers are fatigue, impaired exercise capacity, sleeping problems, life-threatening bradyarrhythmia and hypotension (15). However, a recent critical review showed that only five of 33 described adverse effects (hyperglycaemia, diarrhoea, dizziness, intermittent claudication and bradycardia) were more prevalent in patients treated with beta-blockers than in others (19).

Side effects are disagreeable nonetheless, and their nature may be such as to mask another disease, which may remain undiagnosed for a long time as a result.

Should patients today have beta-blockers?

Should patients today have beta-blockers?

Diagnostic criteria, initial treatment and follow-up of myocardial infarction have changed drastically since the 1980s. In view of the large numbers who use beta-blockers, the problems associated with side effects and masking of other disease are highly relevant. Therapy must therefore be based on the results of prospective, randomised studies performed on a relevant patient population.

No such documentation exists for today’s post-infarction patients. The time is ripe for performing a study on patients who have been optimally treated by present standards. A central exclusion criterion must be severe infarctions that predispose the patient to left ventricular remodelling, where both an angiotensin convertase inhibitor and beta-blocker are indicated regardless.

Literature

1.
Otterstad JE, Platou ES, Mangschau A et al. Hjerteinfarkt. Diagnostikk og behandling. Hjerteforum 2007; 20 (suppl 1): 51 – 2.
2.
The Norwegian Multicenter Study Group. Timolol-induced reduction in mortality and reinfarction in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1981; 304: 801 – 7. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
3.
Hjalmarson A, Elmfeldt D, Herlitz J et al. Effect on mortality of metoprolol in acute myocardial infarction. A double-blind randomised trial. Lancet 1981; 2: 823 – 7. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
4.
B-blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction. I. Mortality results. JAMA 1982; 247: 1707 – 14. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
5.
Munkhaugen J, Sverre E, Peersen K et al. The role of medical and psychosocial factors for unfavourable coronary risk factor control. Scand Cardiovasc J 2016; 50: 1 – 8. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
6.
Kotseva K, Wood D, De Bacquer D et al. EUROASPIRE IV: A European Society of Cardiology survey on the lifestyle, risk factor and therapeutic management of coronary patients from 24 European countries. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2015; 0: 1 – 13. [PubMed]
7.
COMMIT (CLOpidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial) collaborative group. Early intravenous then oral metoprolol in 45 852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomized placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1622 – 32. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
8.
Huang HL, Fox KAA. The impact of beta-blockers on mortality in stable angina: a meta-analysis. Scott Med J 2012; 57: 69 – 75. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
9.
Bangalore S, Steg G, Deedwania P et al. β-Blocker use and clinical outcomes in stable outpatients with and without coronary artery disease. JAMA 2012; 308: 1340 – 9. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
10.
Bauters C, Lemesle G, Meurice T et al. Prognostic impact of β-blocker use in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Heart 2014; 100: 1757 – 61. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
11.
Floyd JS. β-blockers for secondary prevention in stable coronary artery disease: can observational studies provide valid answers? Heart 2014; 100: 1741 – 2. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
12.
Danchin N, Laurent S. Coronary artery disease. Are β-blockers truly helpful in patients with CAD? Nat Rev Cardiol 2013; 10: 11 – 2. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
13.
Bangalore S, Makani H, Radford M et al. Clinical outcomes with β-blockers for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Med 2014; 127: 939 – 53. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
14.
Huang B-T, Huang FY, Zuo Z-L et al. Meta-analysis of relation between oral β-blocker therapy and outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2015; 115: 1529 – 38. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
15.
The Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 2949 – 3003. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
16.
Steg PG, James SK, Atar D et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 2569 – 619. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
17.
Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 267 – 315.
18.
2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease. Circulation 2012; 126: 354 – 471.
19.
Barron AJ, Zaman N, Cole GD et al. Systematic review of genuine versus spurious side-effects of beta-blockers in heart failure using placebo control: recommendations for patient information. Int J Cardiol 2013; 168: 3572 – 9. [PubMed] [CrossRef]

Comments ( 0 )

Dette kommentarfeltet modereres, men kommentarer blir ikke redaksjonelt behandlet ut over å sikre at de følger retningslinjer for vårt kommentarfelt.

This article was published more than 12 months ago and we have therefore closed it for new comments.

Published: 19 April 2016

Tidsskr Nor Legeforen 19 April 2016

doi:

10.4045/tidsskr.15.0884

Received 9 September 2015, first revision submitted 12 November 2015, accepted 29 February 2016. Editor: Martine Rostadmo.

Copyright: ©️️ Tidsskriftet 2025

136

:

624-7

Published: 19 April 2016

Tidsskr Nor Legeforen 2016

136

:

624-7

doi: 10.4045/tidsskr.15.0884

Received 9 September 2015, first revision submitted 12 November 2015, accepted 29 February 2016. Editor: Martine Rostadmo.

Copyright:
©️️ Tidsskriftet 2025

PDF

Print

Recent Articles