-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2008Beta (ss) blockers are indicated for use in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, optimal therapy for people with CAD accompanied by intermittent claudication has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Beta (ss) blockers are indicated for use in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, optimal therapy for people with CAD accompanied by intermittent claudication has been controversial due to the presumed peripheral haemodynamic consequences of beta blockers, leading to worsening symptoms of intermittent claudication.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the potential harm of beta blockers on maximum walking distance, claudication distance, calf blood flow, calf vascular resistance, and skin temperature when used in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD).
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched for publications describing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of beta blockers in PAD in their Trials Register (last searched 6 May 2008) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last searched The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 2). We handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials evaluating the role of both selective (beta1) and non-selective (beta1 and beta2) beta blockers compared with placebo. We excluded trials comparing different types of beta blockers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Primary outcome measures were claudication distance in metres, and the time to claudication in minutes, and maximum walking distance in metres and minutes (as assessed by treadmill).Secondary outcome measures were calf blood flow (ml/100 ml/min), calf vascular resistance, and skin temperature (degrees C).
MAIN RESULTS
We included six RCTs fulfilling the above criteria, with a total of 119 patients. The beta blockers studied were atenolol, propranolol, pindolol, and metoprolol. None of the trials showed a statistically significant worsening effect of beta blockers on either the primary or secondary outcomes. There were no reports of any adverse events with the beta blockers studied.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently no evidence that beta blockers adversely affect walking distance in people with intermittent claudication. However, due to the lack of large published trials beta blockers should be used with caution if clinically indicated.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atenolol; Humans; Intermittent Claudication; Metoprolol; Peripheral Vascular Diseases; Pindolol; Propranolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 18843692
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005508.pub2 -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... Oct 2020Obesity hypertension is an ongoing pandemic. The first-line medications to treat this condition are still subject to debate. We compared diuretics, calcium-channel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Obesity hypertension is an ongoing pandemic. The first-line medications to treat this condition are still subject to debate. We compared diuretics, calcium-channel blockers (CCB), beta-blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) as an initial antihypertensive therapy for prevention of cardiovascular morbimortality of hypertensive individuals who are overweight or obese.
METHODS
We conducted a search of the literature for randomized clinical trials in which at least 50% of the participants were overweight or obese. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), stroke, or end-stage renal disease.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 16 randomized studies. Comparisons of two classes of drugs with at least two studies indicated that (1) CCB and ACEI increased the risk of HF [relative risk (RR) = 2.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-4.40] and stroke [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.13; 1.00-1.26]), respectively, compared to diuretics; and (2) CCB showed a reduction in stroke (HR = 0.77; 0.66-0.89) and total mortality (HR = 0.94; 0.87-1.01) compared to the BB atenolol. Comparisons of two classes of antihypertensive medications with only one study showed that the risk of MI was higher with ARB valsartan versus CCB (HR = 1.19; 95% CI 1.02-1.38, p = 0.02). In contrast, losartan lowered the risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome compared to atenolol (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
In hypertensive subjects with excess weight, diuretics are more effective for preventing HF and stroke than CCB and ACEI, respectively. CCB are a good first-line choice for prevention of cardiovascular disease, except HF.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiometabolic Risk Factors; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Hypertension; Obesity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31898196
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-019-00393-x -
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ Sep 2018Beta blockers (β-blockers) remain a standard therapy in the early treatment of acute coronary syndromes. However, β-blocker therapy in patients with cocaine-associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Beta blockers (β-blockers) remain a standard therapy in the early treatment of acute coronary syndromes. However, β-blocker therapy in patients with cocaine-associated chest pain (CACP) continues to be an area of debate due to the potential risk of unopposed α-adrenergic stimulation and coronary vasospasm. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies to compare outcomes of β-blocker versus no β-blocker use among patients with CACP.
METHODS
We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through September 2016 using the keywords 'beta blocker', 'cocaine' and commonly used β-blockers ('atenolol', 'bisoprolol', 'carvedilol', 'esmolol', 'metoprolol' and 'propranolol') to identify studies evaluating β-blocker use among patients with CACP. We specifically focused on studies comparing outcomes between β-blocker versus no β-blocker usage in patients with CACP. Studies without a comparison between β-blocker and no β-blocker use were excluded. Outcomes of interest included non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and all-cause mortality. Quantitative data synthesis was performed using a random-effects model and heterogeneity was assessed using Q and Istatistics.
RESULTS
A total of five studies evaluating 1794 subjects were included. Overall, there was no significant difference on MI in patients with CACP on β-blocker versus no β-blocker (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.75; p=0.39). Similarly, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality in patients on β-blocker versus no β-blocker (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.79; p=0.43).
CONCLUSIONS
In patients presenting with acute chest pain and underlying cocaine, β-blocker use does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of MI or all-cause mortality.
Topics: Humans; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Atenolol; Bisoprolol; Carvedilol; Cocaine; Metoprolol; Propanolamines; Propranolol
PubMed: 29921621
DOI: 10.1136/emermed-2017-207065 -
The American Journal of Cardiology Mar 2014Despite the use of traditional antianginal medications (i.e., β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and nitrates) and revascularization therapies, symptoms of chronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Despite the use of traditional antianginal medications (i.e., β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and nitrates) and revascularization therapies, symptoms of chronic stable angina pectoris (CSAP) persist in ≥25% of patients. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ranolazine for the treatment of CSAP. We systematically searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and MEDLINE through July 2013 for RCTs comparing ranolazine with placebo or antianginal medications administered as part of usual care for the management of CSAP. End points of interest included exercise stress test performance (duration, time to angina, and time to ST-segment depression), frequency of angina attacks/week, nitroglycerin use/week, and quality of life. We identified 7 RCTs (n = 3,317) of patients with CSAP due to coronary artery disease. Comparators included placebo, amlodipine, and atenolol. All but 1 trial showed a statistically significant improvement in all 3 exercise stress test parameters with ranolazine compared with placebo. Ranolazine also reduced angina frequency and nitroglycerin use compared with placebo. These findings were consistent whether or not patients were also prescribed traditional antianginal pharmacotherapy. In conclusion, ranolazine reduces anginal symptoms among patients with symptomatic CSAP despite their use of traditional antianginal medications.
Topics: Acetanilides; Angina, Stable; Chronic Disease; Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Piperazines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranolazine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24462341
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.11.070 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Nov 2000To conduct a systematic review of evidence relating to management of mild chronic hypertension during pregnancy, including associated risks, benefits, and harms of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of evidence relating to management of mild chronic hypertension during pregnancy, including associated risks, benefits, and harms of treatment with antihypertensive agents, nonpharmacologic measures, and aspirin and benefits of various monitoring strategies.
DATA SOURCES
Using four broad search strategies, we searched English and non-English-language citations in 16 electronic databases from their inception to February 1999 and consulted relevant textbooks, references, and experts.
STUDY SELECTION
Reviewers screened 6228 abstracts and found 215 articles that met multiple prespecified patient selection, study population, and design criteria.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS
Forty-six studies consistently showed that chronic hypertension triples the risk for perinatal mortality (odds ratio [OR] 3.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0, 3.7) and doubles the risk for placental abruption (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.1, 3.9). Thirteen small, randomized controlled trials had inadequate power to rule in or rule out moderate-to-large (20%-50%) benefits of antihypertensive treatment. Possible adverse effects were fetal renal failure when angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are used in the second or third trimester and growth restriction when atenolol is used early in pregnancy. Trials showed that aspirin neither reduces nor increases perinatal and maternal morbidity, but they did not rule out possible small-to moderate beneficial or adverse effects. No studies provide guidance on benefits or consequences of various nonpharmacologic therapies or monitoring strategies.
CONCLUSION
Mild chronic hypertension is associated with increased maternal and fetal risks. Beneficial treatment and monitoring regimens are not clear, but some treatments, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, are best avoided.
Topics: Abruptio Placentae; Antihypertensive Agents; Chronic Disease; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Infant; Infant Mortality; Patient Selection; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 11094241
DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00938-8 -
Journal of General Internal Medicine Sep 2013Systematic review of preventive pharmacologic treatments for community-dwelling adults with episodic migraine. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Systematic review of preventive pharmacologic treatments for community-dwelling adults with episodic migraine.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases through May 20, 2012.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
English-language randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preventive drugs compared to placebo or active treatments examining rates of ≥50 % reduction in monthly migraine frequency or improvement in quality of life.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
We assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence and conducted random effects meta-analyses of absolute risk differences and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 5,244 retrieved references, 215 publications of RCTs provided mostly low-strength evidence because of the risk of bias and imprecision. RCTs examined 59 drugs from 14 drug classes. All approved drugs, including topiramate (9 RCTs), divalproex (3 RCTs), timolol (3 RCTs), and propranolol (4 RCTs); off-label beta blockers metoprolol (4 RCTs), atenolol (1 RCT), nadolol (1 RCT), and acebutolol (1 RCT); angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors captopril (1 RCT) and lisinopril (1 RCT); and angiotensin II receptor blocker candesartan (1 RCT), outperformed placebo in reducing monthly migraine frequency by ≥50 % in 200-400 patients per 1,000 treated. Adverse effects leading to treatment discontinuation (68 RCTs) were greater with topiramate, off-label antiepileptics, and antidepressants than with placebo. Limited direct evidence as well as frequentist and exploratory network Bayesian meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in benefits between approved drugs. Off-label angiotensin-inhibiting drugs and beta-blockers were most effective and tolerable for episodic migraine prevention.
LIMITATIONS
We did not quantify reporting bias or contact principal investigators regarding unpublished trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Approved drugs prevented episodic migraine frequency by ≥50 % with no statistically significant difference between them. Exploratory network meta-analysis suggested that off-label angiotensin-inhibiting drugs and beta-blockers had favorable benefit-to-harm ratios. Evidence is lacking for long-term effects of drug treatments (i.e., trials of more than 3 months duration), especially for quality of life.
Topics: Adult; Anticonvulsants; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23592242
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-013-2433-1 -
Hypertension Research : Official... Apr 2019Although beta blockers have been used as initial therapy for ischemic heart diseases and heart failure, the beneficial effects of beta blockers are controversial...
Although beta blockers have been used as initial therapy for ischemic heart diseases and heart failure, the beneficial effects of beta blockers are controversial compared with other antihypertensive agents as initial therapy for hypertension without compelling indications. Moreover, atenolol has been most commonly used with beta blockers. The objective of the present systematic review associated with the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) 2019 Hypertension Guideline (Clinical Question 6) was to assess the outcomes (cardiocerebrovascular mortality, total cause mortality, hypotension, bradycardia, other adverse effects, and changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP)) of currently used carvedilol and bisoprolol as initial therapy for adult hypertension without compelling indications. Two independent systematic reviewers searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to October 2017 in the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Finally, eight RCTs with 2494 participants were identified to meet our inclusion criteria. There were no RCTs in which cardiocerebrovascular mortality, total cause mortality, hypotension, and bradycardia were assessed between carvedilol or bisoprolol and placebo. SBP-lowering effects were significantly increased for bisoprolol compared with placebo. Here, 50 mg carvedilol significantly reduced SBP compared with placebo, whereas 12.5 mg or 25 mg did not. Regarding adverse effects, no differences were noted between carvedilol and placebo (two RCTs, 286 participants, moderate certainly evidence). In conclusion, current evidence does not support carvedilol or bisoprolol as first-line therapy for adult hypertension without compelling indications.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Bisoprolol; Blood Pressure; Carvedilol; Humans; Hypertension; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30948819
DOI: 10.1038/s41440-018-0174-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and...
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in an unselected population remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update, and assesses the evidence in non-cardiac surgery only.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. If studies included surgery with different types of anaesthesia, we included them if 70% participants, or at least 100 participants, received general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 83 RCTs with 14,967 participants; we found no quasi-randomized studies. All participants were undergoing non-cardiac surgery, and types of surgery ranged from low to high risk. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, esmolol, landiolol, nadolol, atenolol, labetalol, oxprenolol, and pindolol. In nine studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in most studies, it was intraoperatively, but in 18 studies it was before surgery, in six postoperatively, one multi-arm study included groups of different timings, and one study did not report timing of drug administration. Overall, we found that more than half of the studies did not sufficiently report methods used for randomization. All studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. Only two studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. In six studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period.The evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days was uncertain; based on the risk of death in the control group of 25 per 1000, the effect with beta-blockers was between two fewer and 13 more per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.54; 16 studies, 11,446 participants; low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction by 13 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 12 studies, 10,520 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 6 studies, 9460 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.47; 5 studies, 476 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation or flutter by 26 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 9 studies, 9080 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia by 55 more incidences per 1000 (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.56; 49 studies, 12,239 participants; low-certainty evidence), and hypotension by 44 more per 1000 (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51; 49 studies, 12,304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).We downgraded the certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations; some studies had high risks of bias, and the effects were sometimes altered when we excluded studies with a standard care control group (including only placebo-controlled trials showed an increase in early mortality and cerebrovascular events with beta-blockers). We also downgraded for inconsistency; one large, well-conducted, international study found a reduction in myocardial infarction, and an increase in cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, when beta-blockers were used, but other studies showed no evidence of a difference. We could not explain the reason for the inconsistency in the evidence for ventricular arrhythmias, and we also downgraded this outcome for imprecision because we found few studies with few participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for early all-cause mortality with perioperative beta-blockers was uncertain. We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events or ventricular arrhythmias, and the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low and very low. We found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarctions. However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia (low-certainty evidence) and probably increase hypotension (moderate-certainty evidence). Further evidence from large placebo-controlled trials is likely to increase the certainty of these findings, and we recommend the assessment of impact on quality of life. We found 18 studies awaiting classification; inclusion of these studies in future updates may also increase the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anesthesia, General; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Cause of Death; Humans; Hypotension; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 31556094
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013438 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and...
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update and assesses the evidence in cardiac surgery only.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies with 7768 participants; six studies were quasi-randomized and the remaining were RCTs. All participants were undergoing cardiac surgery, and in most studies, at least some of the participants were previously taking beta-blockers. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, sotalol, esmolol, landiolol, acebutolol, timolol, carvedilol, nadolol, and atenolol. In twelve studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in nine studies this was before surgery, in 20 studies during surgery, and in the remaining studies beta-blockers were started postoperatively. Overall, we found that most studies did not report sufficient details for us to adequately assess risk of bias. In particular, few studies reported methods used to randomize participants to groups. In some studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period, and all studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. No studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. We judged 68% studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.Study authors reported few deaths (7 per 1000 in both the intervention and control groups), and we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.90; 29 studies, 4099 participants). For myocardial infarctions, we found no evidence of a difference in events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.52; 25 studies, 3946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Few study authors reported cerebrovascular events, and the evidence was uncertain (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.67; 5 studies, 1471 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on a control risk of 54 per 1000, we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce episodes of ventricular arrhythmias by 32 episodes per 1000 (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63; 12 studies, 2296 participants). For atrial fibrillation or flutter, there may be 163 fewer incidences with beta-blockers, based on a control risk of 327 incidences per 1000 (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; 40 studies, 5650 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence for bradycardia and hypotension was less certain. We found that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to bradycardia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.91; 12 studies, 1640 participants; low-certainty evidence), or hypotension (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.80; 10 studies, 1538 participants; low-certainty evidence).We used GRADE to downgrade the certainty of evidence. Owing to studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain, we downgraded each outcome for study limitations. Based on effect size calculations in the previous review, we found an insufficient number of participants in all outcomes (except atrial fibrillation) and, for some outcomes, we noted a wide confidence interval; therefore, we also downgraded outcomes owing to imprecision. The evidence for atrial fibrillation and length of hospital stay had a moderate level of statistical heterogeneity which we could not explain, and we, therefore, downgraded these outcomes for inconsistency.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence of a difference in early all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, hypotension and bradycardia. However, there may be a reduction in atrial fibrillation and ventricular arrhythmias when beta-blockers are used. A larger sample size is likely to increase the certainty of this evidence. Four studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Humans; Hypotension; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Ischemia; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31544227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013435