-
Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology... May 2017Cocaine abuse remains a significant worldwide health problem. Patients with cardiovascular toxicity from cocaine abuse frequently present to the emergency department for... (Review)
Review
Cocaine abuse remains a significant worldwide health problem. Patients with cardiovascular toxicity from cocaine abuse frequently present to the emergency department for treatment. These patients may be tachycardic, hypertensive, agitated, and have chest pain. Several pharmacological options exist for treatment of cocaine-induced cardiovascular toxicity. For the past 3 decades, the phenomenon of unopposed α-stimulation after β-blocker use in cocaine-positive patients has been cited as an absolute contraindication, despite limited and inconsistent clinical evidence. In this review, the authors of the original studies, case reports, and systematic review in which unopposed α-stimulation was believed to be a factor investigate the pathophysiology, pharmacology, and published evidence behind the unopposed α-stimulation phenomenon. We also investigate other potential explanations for unopposed α-stimulation, including the unique and deleterious pharmacologic properties of cocaine in the absence of β-blockers. The safety and efficacy of the mixed β-/α-blockers labetalol and carvedilol are also discussed in relation to unopposed α-stimulation.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Animals; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cardiovascular System; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Cocaine; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Hemodynamics; Humans; Receptors, Adrenergic, alpha; Sympathetic Nervous System; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28399647
DOI: 10.1177/1074248416681644 -
JACC. Heart Failure Aug 2015This study sought to evaluate the effects of beta-blocker withdrawal in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to evaluate the effects of beta-blocker withdrawal in acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF).
BACKGROUND
Published reports showed trends for either no harm or increased risk of in-hospital mortality, short-term mortality, and rehospitalization rates in patients admitted for ADHF that discontinued beta-blockers; however, a comprehensive analysis has not been conducted.
METHODS
Relevant studies from January 2000 through January 2015 were identified in the PubMed, EMBASE, and COCHRANE electronic databases. Where appropriate data were available, weighted relative risks were estimated using random-effects meta-analysis techniques.
RESULTS
Five observational studies and 1 randomized clinical trial (n = 2,704 patients who continued beta-blocker therapy and n = 439 patients who discontinued beta-blocker therapy) that reported the short-term effects of beta-blocker withdrawal in ADHF were included in the analyses. In 2 studies, beta-blocker withdrawal significantly increased risk of in-hospital mortality (risk ratio: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51 to 9.14). Short-term mortality (relative risk: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.49; 4 studies) and combined short-term rehospitalization or death (relative risk: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.03 to 2.45; 4 studies) were also significantly increased.
CONCLUSIONS
Discontinuation of beta-blockers in patients admitted with ADHF was associated with significantly increased in-hospital mortality, short-term mortality, and the combined endpoint of short-term rehospitalization or mortality. These data suggest beta-blockers should be continued in ADHF patients if their clinical picture allows.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Heart Failure; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Substance Withdrawal Syndrome; Survival Rate
PubMed: 26251094
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2015.03.008 -
Chest Jun 2021Historically, β-blockers have been considered to be relatively contraindicated for septic shock because they may cause cardiac suppression. On the other hand, there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effect of Ultrashort-Acting β-Blockers on Mortality in Patients With Sepsis With Persistent Tachycardia Despite Initial Resuscitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
BACKGROUND
Historically, β-blockers have been considered to be relatively contraindicated for septic shock because they may cause cardiac suppression. On the other hand, there is an increasing interest in the use of β-blockers for treating patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia despite initial resuscitation.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Do ultrashort-acting β-blockers such as esmolol and landiolol improve mortality in patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia despite initial resuscitation?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the mortality of patients with sepsis and septic shock treated with esmolol or landiolol. We updated our search on April 20, 2020. Two independent reviewers assessed whether titles and abstracts met the following eligibility criteria: (1) RCT, (2) patients with sepsis and septic shock ≥ 18 years of age, and (3) treatment with either esmolol/landiolol or placebo/no interventions. Two authors independently extracted selected patient and study characteristics and outcomes. The results of all analyses are presented using random effect models.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs with a pooled sample size of 613 patients were included. Of these, six RCTs with 572 patients reported 28-day mortality. Esmolol or landiolol use in patients with sepsis and septic shock was significantly associated with lower 28-day mortality (risk ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85; P < .001). Unimportant heterogeneity was observed (I = 31%). The absolute risk reduction and number of patients to be treated to prevent one death were 18.2% and 5.5, respectively.
INTERPRETATION
The use of ultrashort-acting β-blockers such as esmolol and landiolol in patients with sepsis with persistent tachycardia despite initial resuscitation was associated with significantly lower 28-day mortality.
TRIAL REGISTRY
UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; No.: UMIN000040174; URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resuscitation; Sepsis; Tachycardia
PubMed: 33434497
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.01.009 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Mar 2022Diverse genetic and/or external factors may induce psoriasis. Drug exposure is 1 such prominent external factor; antihypertensive drugs are reportedly associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Diverse genetic and/or external factors may induce psoriasis. Drug exposure is 1 such prominent external factor; antihypertensive drugs are reportedly associated with psoriasis, but study results have been inconsistent. In this context, we investigated the associations between antihypertensive drugs and incidence if psoriasis via a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Literature search in databases such as PubMed, Embase and Web of Science was conducted on 8 January 2021, and obtained data were pooled for meta- and network meta-analysis. Fixed- or random effect models were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for evaluating the strength of the associations between antihypertensive drugs and psoriasis incidence. In addition to meta-analysis, Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. ResultsThirteen eligible studies were included for meta-analysis with 6 378 116 individuals and 8 studies for network meta-analysis with 5 615 918 individuals. All antihypertensive drugs were significantly associated with psoriasis incidence. In a meta-analysis, the pooled ORs were 1.67 (95% CI: 1.31-2.13) for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, 1.40 (95% CI: 1.20-1.63) for β-blockers, 1.53 (95% CI: 1.23-1.89) for calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), and 1.70 (95% CI: 1.40-2.06) for thiazide diuretics. For the comparative risks of psoriasis among antihypertensive drugs in the network meta-analysis, ORs were 2.09 (95% CI: 1.39-3.18) for ACE inhibitors, 1.35 (95% CI: 0.99-1.91) for BBs, 1.53 (95% CI: 1.07-2.24) for CCBs and 1.80 (95% CI: 1.23-2.66) for thiazide diuretics.
CONCLUSION
This study confirmed the associations between antihypertensive drugs and psoriasis; ACE inhibitors, BBs, CCBs and thiazide diuretics increased the risk of psoriasis. Therefore, antihypertensive drug users should be carefully monitored for psoriasis.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Bayes Theorem; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Hypertension; Network Meta-Analysis; Psoriasis; Sodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors
PubMed: 34611920
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15060 -
Annales Pharmaceutiques Francaises Sep 2022Beta-blockers have long been successfully used for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. However, differences exist between their chemical... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Beta-blockers have long been successfully used for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. However, differences exist between their chemical structure, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (absorption, bioavailability, metabolism, hydrophilic or lipophilic character, selective or non-selective nature, the presence or absence of intrinsic sympathomimetic activity), which may confer different antiarrhythmic properties to different beta-blockers. The aim of this study was to analyze the current existing evidence for bisoprolol for the treatment of both supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Using the keywords "bisoprolol" and "arrhythmias" or "atrial fibrillation" or "ventricular tachycardia" or "premature ventricular complexes" or "ventricular fibrillation", the Medline database was searched for articles in English or French until April 2020 assessing the role of bisoprolol in the treatment of arrhythmias. Data was then analyzed according to the type of arrhythmia treated and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
A total of 325 studies were identified, of which 28 were considered relevant to the current topic. Among these studies, 19 assessed the role of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, 8 its role in treating ventricular arrhythmias and 1 its role in supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. The quality of evidence varied from low (7 studies) to high (5 studies).
CONCLUSION
Current evidence exists supporting the use of bisoprolol for the treatment of supraventricular arrhythmias, especially for rate control during atrial fibrillation. Evidence also exists for its efficacy in the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias, both in primary and in secondary prevention.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atrial Fibrillation; Bisoprolol; Humans
PubMed: 35093388
DOI: 10.1016/j.pharma.2022.01.007 -
Journal of Anesthesia Dec 2015We have performed a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis investigating the effect of beta-adrenergic antagonist on perioperative pain in randomized clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We have performed a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis investigating the effect of beta-adrenergic antagonist on perioperative pain in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The search included the CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases (from inception to 10 February 2015). From the retrieved full texts, we hand-searched the references and PubMed related citations. A total of 11 RCTs consisting data of 701 adult patients were eligible for this systematic review. Esmolol was evaluated in ten trials and propranolol in one. Esmolol decreased the need for rescue analgesics by 32-50%; p < 0.05 (n = 7) and the proportion of patients needing rescue analgesia from 100 to 65%; p < 0.005 (n = 1), and propranolol decreased the need for rescue analgesics by 72%; p < 0.001 (n = 1). The time to the first rescue analgesics was longer (p < 0.05) and pain ratings were lower (p < 0.05) in patients with beta-adrenergic antagonists. However, in two opioid-controlled studies, one in knee arthroscopy and another in tubal ligation patients, the proportion of patients needing rescue analgesia was two-times higher in esmolol-treated patients: 52-57 vs. 23-34%, p < 0.05. Adverse effects were rarely reported, and as reported were mostly cardiovascular alterations. In conclusion, intra-operative beta-adrenergic antagonists' administration may decrease postoperative pain and analgesic consumption when given as an adjuvant to general anesthesia.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthesia, General; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26160590
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-015-2041-9 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Oct 2020Beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist (beta-blocker) poisoning is a common overdose which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. To evaluate the effects of...
Beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist (beta-blocker) poisoning is a common overdose which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. To evaluate the effects of treatments for beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist poisoning. Searches were conducted across MEDLINE (1946-26 November 2019, Ovid); Embase (1974-26 November 2019, Ovid); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, to 26 November 2019) utilising a combination of subject headings and free text. The search strategy identified 15, 553 citations. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts prior to selecting 141 articles (Kappa on articles included = 0.982, 95% CI 0.980-0.985). Primary outcomes included mortality and improvement in haemodynamic parameters (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure or a composite measure able to quantitate a haemodynamic response). The risk of bias was high for all interventions. Fifteen case reports described the administration of activated charcoal and five detailed the use of gastric lavage. As there was concurrent utilisation of multiple interventions, it was difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the relative contribution of these interventions to mortality or survival. The use of catecholamines in treating beta-blocker toxicity was reported in 16 case reports, 3 case series and 2 animal studies. These agents most likely provided a survival benefit and improved haemodynamics. Multiple intravenous boluses of atropine were associated with improvement in heart rate and blood pressure in one case report. Intravenous calcium was associated with an improvement in haemodynamics in three out of six case reports but in association with multiple other therapies as well as in two animal studies. The use of this therapy was associated with mortality benefit in 10 case series. Two case reports showed clear haemodynamic improvement in a timeframe consistent with insulin administration (bolus then continuous infusion). Maintenance dosing ranged from 1 to 10 units/kg/h of insulin. However, it is unclear whether high-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy improved haemodynamic response above catecholamines and other inotropic agents in humans. Hypoglycaemia and hypokalemia were commonly observed adverse effects. Glucagon was associated with minor improvements in haemodynamics through an increase in heart rate in two cases series, nine case reports and five animal studies. Four case reports reported an association with improvement in haemodynamics following administration of methylene blue but in the setting of co-ingestion with amlodipine. There was variable response to intravenous lipid emulsion therapy reported in 10 case series, 5 animal studies and 21 case reports. There were four case reports showing variable response to lignocaine in arrhythmias secondary to beta-blocker toxicity. Fructose diphosphate, levosimendan and amrinone did not provide a mortality or significant haemodynamic benefit in three animal studies and nine case reports. . Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with improved survival in patients with severe cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest in an observational study and four cases series. The evidence of four case reports suggest haemodialysis may assist in the management of massive overdose of specific water-soluble beta-blockers (e.g., atenolol) by improving elimination; however, a survival or haemodynamic benefit was not established. One case series and a single case report showed the utility of temporary overdrive cardiac pacing to prevent arrhythmias in sotalol toxicity. Catecholamines, vasopressors, high-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with reduced mortality. However, it must be acknowledged that multiple treatments were often given simultaneously. Haemodynamic improvements in blood pressure and cardiac output were seen with the use of catecholamines, vasopressin and high-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy. Evidence for treatment recommendations is almost entirely drawn from very low- to low-quality studies and subject to bias. However, it is reasonable to have a graduated response to cardiovascular instability beginning with intravenous fluids, commencement of a single or a combination of catecholamine inotropes and vasopressors depending upon the type of haemodynamic compromise (bradycardia, left ventricular dysfunction, vasodilation). High-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy can be introduced as an adjunctive inotrope and lastly, more invasive methods such as veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered in cases unresponsive to other therapies.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Animals; Atropine; Catecholamines; Drug Overdose; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Fat Emulsions, Intravenous; Hemodynamics; Humans; Insulin; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 32310006
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2020.1752918 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical question: What class of drug to use first-line? This review attempted to answer that question.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the mortality and morbidity effects from different first-line antihypertensive drug classes: thiazides (low-dose and high-dose), beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and alpha-blockers, compared to placebo or no treatment.Secondary objectives: when different antihypertensive drug classes are used as the first-line drug, to quantify the blood pressure lowering effect and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse drug effects, compared to placebo or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized trials (RCT) of at least one year duration, comparing one of six major drug classes with a placebo or no treatment, in adult patients with blood pressure over 140/90 mmHg at baseline. The majority (over 70%) of the patients in the treatment group were taking the drug class of interest after one year. We included trials with both hypertensive and normotensive patients in this review if the majority (over 70%) of patients had elevated blood pressure, or the trial separately reported outcome data on patients with elevated blood pressure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), total cardiovascular events (CVS), decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and withdrawals due to adverse drug effects. We used a fixed-effect model to to combine dichotomous outcomes across trials and calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We presented blood pressure data as mean difference (MD) with 99% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
The 2017 updated search failed to identify any new trials. The original review identified 24 trials with 28 active treatment arms, including 58,040 patients. We found no RCTs for ARBs or alpha-blockers. These results are mostly applicable to adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. The mean age of participants was 56 years, and mean duration of follow-up was three to five years.High-quality evidence showed that first-line low-dose thiazides reduced mortality (11.0% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97); total CVS (12.9% with control versus 9.0% with treatment; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.76), stroke (6.2% with control versus 4.2% with treatment; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77), and coronary heart disease (3.9% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line high-dose thiazides reduced stroke (1.9% with control versus 0.9% with treatment; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61) and total CVS (5.1% with control versus 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), but did not reduce mortality (3.1% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05), or coronary heart disease (2.7% with control versus 2.7% with treatment; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line beta-blockers did not reduce mortality (6.2% with control versus 6.0% with treatment; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07) or coronary heart disease (4.4% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.03), but reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and total CVS (7.6% with control versus 6.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line ACE inhibitors reduced mortality (13.6% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95), stroke (6.0% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82), coronary heart disease (13.5% with control versus 11.0% with treatment; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94), and total CVS (20.1% with control versus 15.3% with treatment; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85).Low-quality evidence showed that first-line calcium channel blockers reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 1.9% with treatment; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.84) and total CVS (8.0% with control versus 5.7% with treatment; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87), but not coronary heart disease (3.1% with control versus 2.4% with treatment; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09), or mortality (6.0% with control versus 5.1% with treatment; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09).There was low-quality evidence that withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with first-line low-dose thiazides (5.0% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 2.38, 95% CI 2.06 to 2.75), high-dose thiazides (2.2% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 4.48, 95% CI 3.83 to 5.24), and beta-blockers (3.1% with control versus 14.4% with treatment; RR 4.59, 95% CI 4.11 to 5.13). No data for these outcomes were available for first-line ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers. The blood pressure data were not used to assess the effect of the different classes of drugs as the data were heterogeneous, and the number of drugs used in the trials differed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
First-line low-dose thiazides reduced all morbidity and mortality outcomes in adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective, but the evidence was of lower quality. First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers were inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors; Stroke; Thiazides
PubMed: 29667175
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001841.pub3 -
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 -
Journal of Hepatology Oct 2022Whether non-selective β-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Whether non-selective β-blockers can prevent decompensation of cirrhosis warrants clarification. Carvedilol might be particularly effective since its intrinsic vasodilatory activity may ameliorate hepatic vascular resistance, a major mechanism of portal hypertension in early cirrhosis. We assessed whether carvedilol may prevent decompensation and improve survival in patients with compensated cirrhosis and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH).
METHODS
By systematic review we identified randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing carvedilol vs. control therapy (no-active treatment or endoscopic variceal ligation [EVL]) in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH without previous bleeding. We performed a competing-risk time-to-event meta-analysis using individual patient data (IPD) obtained from principal investigators of RCTs. Only compensated patients were included. Primary outcomes were prevention of decompensation (liver transplantation and death were competing events) and death (liver transplantation was a competing event). Models were adjusted using propensity scores for baseline covariates with the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) approach.
RESULTS
Among 125 full-text studies evaluated, 4 RCTs were eligible. The 4 provided IPD and were included, comprising 352 patients with compensated cirrhosis, 181 treated with carvedilol and 171 controls (79 received EVL and 92 placebo). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Standardized differences were <10% by IPTW. The risk of developing decompensation of cirrhosis was lower with carvedilol than in controls (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 0.506; 95% CI 0.289-0.887; p = 0.017; I = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.880), mainly due to a reduced risk of ascites (SHR 0.491; 95% CI 0.247-0.974; p = 0.042; I = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.384). The risk of death was also lower with carvedilol (SHR 0.417; 95% CI 0.194-0.896; p = 0.025; I = 0.0%, Q-statistic-p = 0.989).
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term carvedilol therapy reduced decompensation of cirrhosis and significantly improved survival in compensated patients with CSPH. This suggests that screening patients with compensated cirrhosis for CSPH to enable the prompt initiation of carvedilol could improve outcomes.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019144786.
LAY SUMMARY
The transition from compensated cirrhosis to decompensated cirrhosis is associated with markedly reduced life expectancy. Therefore, preventing decompensation in patients with compensated cirrhosis would be associated with greatly improved patient outcomes. There has been controversy regarding the use of non-selective β-blockers (portal pressure-lowering medications) in patients with cirrhosis and elevated portal blood pressure (portal hypertension). Herein, using a competing-risk meta-analysis to optimize sample size and properly investigate cirrhosis as a multistate disease and outcomes as time-dependent events, we show that carvedilol (a non-selective β-blocker) is associated with a reduced risk of decompensating events and improved survival in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Ascites; Carvedilol; Esophageal and Gastric Varices; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Liver Cirrhosis; Portal Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35661713
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.05.021