-
BMJ Clinical Evidence Nov 2014Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Acute atrial fibrillation is rapid, irregular, and chaotic atrial activity of recent onset. Various definitions of acute atrial fibrillation have been used in the literature, but for the purposes of this review we have included studies where atrial fibrillation may have occurred up to 7 days previously. Risk factors for acute atrial fibrillation include increasing age, cardiovascular disease, alcohol, diabetes, and lung disease. Acute atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke and heart failure. The condition resolves spontaneously within 24 to 48 hours in more than 50% of people; however, many people will require interventions to control heart rate or restore sinus rhythm.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of interventions to prevent embolism, for conversion to sinus rhythm, and to control heart rate in people with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (within 7 days) who are haemodynamically stable? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2014 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 26 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: amiodarone, antithrombotic treatment before cardioversion, atenolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, digoxin, diltiazem, direct current cardioversion, flecainide, metoprolol, nebivolol, propafenone, sotalol, timolol, and verapamil.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Safety
PubMed: 25430048
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).There was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.Total CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Atenolol; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Diuretics; Heart Arrest; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 28107561
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Stroke affects 15 million people per year worldwide. Despite recent developments in acute stroke treatment, prevention remains very important. Stroke has a high rate of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Stroke affects 15 million people per year worldwide. Despite recent developments in acute stroke treatment, prevention remains very important. Stroke has a high rate of recurrence; therefore secondary prevention is also important. Many clinical approaches to control risk factors have been proposed. One of these approaches is the prescription of beta-blockers that have effects beyond the reduction of blood pressure, which can reduce the recurrence of stroke.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of beta-blockers for preventing stroke recurrence and for reducing death and major vascular events in people with a previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and to determine their safety, particularly with regard to the development of diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (May 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched ongoing trials registers and reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with previous stroke or TIA due to arterial thrombosis or embolism. The intervention was any beta-blocker versus control, or beta-blocker plus other treatment versus other treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the trials identified, appraised quality, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two RCTs involving 2193 participants in the review. Both studies randomised participants to either beta-blocker (atenolol 5 mg) or placebo and were of a high methodological quality. We noted no statistical differences among the groups in risks of fatal and non-fatal stroke (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.18). For other outcomes analysed (major vascular events, death from all causes, death from cardiovascular causes) , we observed no significant differences between the groups. There were minor blood pressure reductions in the intervention group. Neither of the included studies reported the occurrence of diabetes among their outcomes or assessed quality of life. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in participants taking atenolol than in those given placebo, and were the most common reason given for discontinuing treatment (RR 1.85, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.35).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
To date, no available evidence supports the routine use of beta-blockers for secondary prevention after stroke or TIA. More studies with larger samples are needed.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-1 Receptor Antagonists; Atenolol; Humans; Ischemic Attack, Transient; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recurrence; Secondary Prevention; Stroke
PubMed: 25317988
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007890.pub3 -
Journal of Indian Association of... 2022Infantile hemangioma (IH) is the most common benign vascular tumor of infancy. Propranolol is considered first-line therapy for IH. However, it is associated with side...
BACKGROUND
Infantile hemangioma (IH) is the most common benign vascular tumor of infancy. Propranolol is considered first-line therapy for IH. However, it is associated with side effects. Therefore, there was a need for alternative therapy. Atenolol, a selective b1-blocker may be free from such side effects. Hence, the present study aims to develop a more accurate estimate of the safety and efficacy of atenolol compared to propranolol in the treatment of IH.
METHODOLOGY
A search of various literature databases (PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) was done to identify studies which compared propranolol versus atenolol in the treatment of IH. The combined odds ratio along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were evaluated using a fixed-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 300 articles were screened of which five studies including 116 patients in atenolol arm and 138 patients in the propranolol arm were analyzed. Atenolol was comparable to propranolol in terms of efficacy as no significant difference was seen between both the treatment arms in terms of hemangioma activity score (mean difference 0.25 [95% CI;‒0.21, 0.71]) and complete response (odds ratio [OR] =0.43; 95% CI; 0.17, 1.11; = 0.08,). Atenolol therapy was better than propranolol in terms of safety, i.e., serious/potentially serious side effect, (OR = 0.11; 95% CI; 0.02, 0.51; = 0.005) and wheezing/bronchial hyperreactivity (OR = 0.11; 95% CI; 0.02, 0.51; = 0.005).
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis provides evidence that atenolol has got a comparable efficacy and better safety profile with propranolol.
PubMed: 35733601
DOI: 10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_3_21 -
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine Aug 2020Infantile haemangioma (IH) is a benign vascular tumour type that occurs in 3-10% of infants. In the present meta-analysis, previous studies comparing clinical outcomes,...
Infantile haemangioma (IH) is a benign vascular tumour type that occurs in 3-10% of infants. In the present meta-analysis, previous studies comparing clinical outcomes, including the recovery rate and haemangioma activity score (HAS), adverse effects and relapse rates, were compared between patients treated with atenolol and those treated with propranolol for IH. A systematic search in various databases, including Medline, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar from inception until July 2019 was performed. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of published trials. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model and reported pooled mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% CIs was performed. In total, 8 studies including 608 participants were analyzed. Only 2 studies were randomized controlled trials, while the majority of studies had low or unclear bias risks. Except for the response to medication (pooled OR=1.49; 95% CI, 0.85-2.18), all other outcomes (HAS, adverse reactions and relapse rate) were better for the atenolol group than the propranolol group. Atenolol resulted in better HAS (pooled MD=0.16; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.73). Propranolol had more adverse reactions (pooled OR=2.17; 95% CI, 0.93-5.06) and a higher relapse rate (pooled OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.44-6.41) when compared to atenolol. However, these findings were not statistically significant. The results of this analysis suggest that atenolol may be non-inferior to propranolol and may offer advantages, including lower adverse reactions and relapse rates.
PubMed: 32742396
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2020.8842 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Jun 2023Currently, only a few specific blood pressure-lowering medications are recommended for migraine prevention. Whether benefits extend to other classes or drugs is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Currently, only a few specific blood pressure-lowering medications are recommended for migraine prevention. Whether benefits extend to other classes or drugs is uncertain.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized control trials on the effect of blood pressure-lowering medications compared with placebo in participants with episodic migraine. Data were collected on four outcomes - monthly headache or migraine days, and monthly headache or migraine attacks, with a standardised mean difference calculated for overall. Random effect meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
In total, 50 trials (70% of which were crossover) were included, comprising 60 comparisons. Overall mean age was 39 years, and 79% were female. Monthly headache days were fewer in all classes compared to placebo, and this was statistically significant for all but one class: alpha-blockers -0.7 (95% CI: -1.2, -0.1), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors -1.3 (95% CI: -2.9, 0.2), angiotensin II receptor blockers -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1), beta-blocker -0.4 (-0.8, -0.0) and calcium channel blockers -1.8 (-3.4, -0.2). Standardised mean difference was significantly reduced for all drug classes and was separately significant for numerous specific drugs: clonidine, candesartan, atenolol, bisoprolol, metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, nicardipine and verapamil.
CONCLUSION
Among people with episodic migraine, a broader number of blood pressure-lowering medication classes and drugs reduce headache frequency than those currently included in treatment guidelines. The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017079176).
Topics: Humans; Female; Adult; Male; Blood Pressure; Migraine Disorders; Calcium Channel Blockers; Propranolol; Headache
PubMed: 37350141
DOI: 10.1177/03331024231183166 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Beta blockers are commonly used to treat hypertension. The blood pressure reading is the primary tool for physicians and patients to assess the efficacy of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Beta blockers are commonly used to treat hypertension. The blood pressure reading is the primary tool for physicians and patients to assess the efficacy of the treatment. The blood pressure lowering effect of beta-1 selective blockers is not known.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the dose-related effects of various doses and types of beta-1 selective adrenergic receptor blockers on systolic and diastolic blood pressure versus placebo in people with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) for related reviews.We searched the following databases for primary studies: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (All years to 15 October 2015), CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2015, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 15 October 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 15 October 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to 15 October 2015).The Hypertension Group Specialised Register includes controlled trials from searches of CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, LILACS, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).Electronic databases were searched using a strategy combining the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity-maximizing version (2008 revision) with selected MeSH terms and free text terms. No language restrictions were used. The MEDLINE search strategy was translated into CENTRAL, EMBASE, the Hypertension Group Specialised Register and ClinicalTrials.gov using the appropriate controlled vocabulary as applicable. Full strategies are in Appendix 1.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies had to contain a beta blocker monotherapy arm with fixed dose. People enrolled into the studies had to have primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of studies had to be between 3 weeks to 12 weeks. Drugs in this class of beta blockers are atenolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, esmolol, metoprolol, nebivolol, pafenolol, practolol.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.5 was used to synthesise data.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 56 RCTs (randomised controlled trials) that examined the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective blockers (beta-1 blocker) in 7812 primary hypertensive patients. Among the included trials, 26 RCTs were parallel studies and 30 RCTs were cross-over studies, examining eight beta-1 blockers. Overall, the majority of beta-1 blockers studied significantly lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). In people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute. The maximum BP reduction of beta-1 blockers occurred at twice the starting dose. Individual beta-1 blockers did not exhibit a graded dose-response effect on SBP and DBP over the recommended dose range.Most beta-1 blockers tested significantly lowered heart rate. A graded dose-response of beta-1 blockers on heart rate was evident. Higher dose beta-1 blockers lowered heart rate more than lower doses. Individually and overall beta-1 blockers did not affect pulse pressure, which distinguishes them from other classes of drugs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides low quality evidence that in people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute as compared to placebo. The effect of beta-1 blockers at peak hours, -12/-9 mmHg, was greater than the reduction at trough hours, -8/-7 mmHg. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by a greater magnitude than dual receptor beta-blockers and partial agonist beta-blockers, lowered BP similarly to nonselective beta-blockers. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered SBP by a similar degree and lowered DBP by a greater degree than diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Because DBP is lowered by a similar extent to SBP, beta-1 selective blockers do not reduce pulse pressure.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Diastole; Essential Hypertension; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypertension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Systole
PubMed: 26961574
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007451.pub2 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2021To investigate the statistical association between hypoglycaemia and β-blocker use and to define what patient and drug characteristics could potentially increase the...
AIMS
To investigate the statistical association between hypoglycaemia and β-blocker use and to define what patient and drug characteristics could potentially increase the risk for its occurrence.
METHODS
We investigated the relationship between pharmacological parameters of β-blockers and the occurrence of hypoglycaemia by conducting a case/non case analysis using the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database. Pharmacological properties that could represent a predictive factor for hypoglycaemia were analysed through a multilinear binary logistic regression (null hypothesis rejected for values of P < .05). We also performed a systematic review of clinical studies on this association.
RESULTS
Of 83 954 selected reports, 1465 cases (1.75%) of hypoglycaemia were identified. The association was found statistically significant for nadolol (reporting odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 6.98 [5.40-9.03]), celiprolol (2.35 [1.35-4.10]), propranolol (2.14 [1.87-2.46]) and bisoprolol (1.42 [1.25-1.61]). Paediatric cases (n = 310) showed a positive association with hypoglycaemia for long half-life drugs (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.232 [1.398-3.563]) and a negative association for β1-selectivity (0.644 [0.414-0.999]). Seven papers were included in the systematic review. Because of great heterogeneity in study design and demographics, hypoglycaemia incidence rates varied greatly among studies, occurring in 1.73% of the cases for propranolol treatment (n total participants = 575), 6.6% for atenolol (n = 30) and 10% for carvedilol (n = 20).
CONCLUSION
Nadolol appears to be the β-blocker significantly most associated with hypoglycaemia and children represent the most susceptible sample. Furthermore, long half-life and nonselective β-blockers seem to increase the risk for its occurrence.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Carvedilol; Child; Humans; Hypoglycemia; Odds Ratio; Pharmacovigilance
PubMed: 33506522
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14754 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2016Peripheral vasoconstriction has long been described as a vascular adverse effect of β-adrenoceptor blockers. Whether β-adrenoceptor blockers should be avoided in... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Peripheral vasoconstriction has long been described as a vascular adverse effect of β-adrenoceptor blockers. Whether β-adrenoceptor blockers should be avoided in patients with peripheral vascular disease depends on pharmacological properties (e.g. preferential binding to β1 -adrenoreceptors or intrinsic sympathomimetic activity). However, this has not been confirmed in experimental studies. We performed a network meta-analysis in order to assess the comparative risk of peripheral vasoconstriction of different β-adrenoceptor blockers.
METHOD
We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including β-adrenoceptor blockers that were published in core clinical journals in the Pubmed database. All RCTs reporting peripheral vasoconstriction as an adverse effect of β-adrenoceptor blockers and controls were included. Sensitivity analyses were conducted including possibly confounding covariates (latitude, properties of the β-adrenoceptor blockers, e.g. intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, vasodilation, drug indication, drug doses). The protocol and the detailed search strategy are available online (PROSPERO registry CRD42014014374).
RESULTS
Among 2238 records screened, 38 studies including 57 026 patients were selected. Overall, peripheral vasoconstriction was reported in 7% of patients with β-adrenoceptor blockers and 4.6% in the control groups (P < 0.001), with heterogeneity among drugs. Atenolol and propranolol had a significantly higher risk than placebo, whereas pindolol, acebutolol and oxprenolol had not.
CONCLUSION
Our results suggest that β-adrenoceptor blockers have variable propensity to enhance peripheral vasoconstriction and that it is not related to preferential binding to β1 -adrenoceptors. These findings challenge FDA and European recommendations regarding precautions and contra-indications of use of β-adrenoceptor blockers and suggest that β-adrenoceptor blockers with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity could be safely used in patients with peripheral vascular disease.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sympathomimetics; Vasoconstriction; Vasodilation
PubMed: 27085011
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12980 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jun 2021β-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension....
BACKGROUND
β-adrenergic antagonists (BAAs) are used to treat cardiovascular disease such as ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, dysrhythmias, and hypertension. Poisoning from BAAs can lead to severe morbidity and mortality. We aimed to determine the utility of extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs) in BAAs poisoning.
METHODS
We conducted systematic reviews of the literature, screened studies, extracted data, and summarized findings following published EXTRIP methods.
RESULTS
A total of 76 studies (4 in vitro and 2 animal experiments, 1 pharmacokinetic simulation study, 37 pharmacokinetic studies on patients with end-stage kidney disease, and 32 case reports or case series) met inclusion criteria. Toxicokinetic or pharmacokinetic data were available on 334 patients (including 73 for atenolol, 54 for propranolol, and 17 for sotalol). For intermittent hemodialysis, atenolol, nadolol, practolol, and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable; acebutolol, bisoprolol, and metipranolol were assessed as moderately dialyzable; metoprolol and talinolol were considered slightly dialyzable; and betaxolol, carvedilol, labetalol, mepindolol, propranolol, and timolol were considered not dialyzable. Data were available for clinical analysis on 37 BAA poisoned patients (including 9 patients for atenolol, 9 for propranolol, and 9 for sotalol), and no reliable comparison between the ECTR cohort and historical controls treated with standard care alone could be performed. The EXTRIP workgroup recommends against using ECTR for patients severely poisoned with propranolol (strong recommendation, very low quality evidence). The workgroup offered no recommendation for ECTR in patients severely poisoned with atenolol or sotalol because of apparent balance of risks and benefits, except for impaired kidney function in which ECTR is suggested (weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence). Indications for ECTR in patients with impaired kidney function include refractory bradycardia and hypotension for atenolol or sotalol poisoning, and recurrent torsade de pointes for sotalol. Although other BAAs were considered dialyzable, clinical data were too limited to develop recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS
BAAs have different properties affecting their removal by ECTR. The EXTRIP workgroup assessed propranolol as non-dialyzable. Atenolol and sotalol were assessed as dialyzable in patients with kidney impairment, and the workgroup suggests ECTR in patients severely poisoned with these drugs when aforementioned indications are present.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Consensus; Drug Overdose; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Humans
PubMed: 34112223
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03585-7