-
Cardiovascular Diabetology May 2021Cardiac arrhythmias are associated with poorer outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), diabetes mellitus (DM), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Previous studies... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Cardiac arrhythmias are associated with poorer outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF), diabetes mellitus (DM), and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Previous studies have shown inconsistent conclusions regarding the association between sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and the risk of developing arrhythmias. This study aims to investigate the association of SGLT2i treatment with arrhythmia outcomes in clinical trials of patients with HF, DM, or CKD.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception up to 27 August 2020. Randomized controlled trials that randomized patients with DM, CKD, or HF to SGLT2i or placebo were included. The outcomes of interest include atrial fibrillation (AF), embolic stroke, atrial flutter (AFL), AF/AFL, ventricular tachycardia (VT), and cardiac arrest. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Out of 4,532 citations, 22 trials with altogether 52,115 patients were included (mean age 63.2 years; 33,747 [64.8%] of participants were men). SGLT2i were associated with a lower risk of AF (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96), embolic stroke (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12-0.85), AF/AFL (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.95), and VT (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53-0.99), while the risk reductions in AFL (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.58-1.17) and cardiac arrest (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61-1.14) did not reach statistical significance. The associations appeared to be consistent across different baseline conditions (DM vs CKD vs HF; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD] vs no ASCVD) and the SGLT2i used.
CONCLUSIONS
SGLT2i reduced the risk of cardiac arrhythmias. Our study provides further evidence for recommending the use of SGLT2i in patients with DM, CKD, and HF. Further research is needed to fully elucidate the mechanism by which SGLT2i protect against arrhythmias.
Topics: Aged; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Heart Failure; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33962654
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-021-01293-8 -
Europace : European Pacing,... Aug 2021Single oral dose anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) are used to cardiovert recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF); however, the optimal agent is uncertain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Single-dose oral anti-arrhythmic drugs for cardioversion of recent-onset atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
AIMS
Single oral dose anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) are used to cardiovert recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF); however, the optimal agent is uncertain.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials testing single oral dose AADs vs. any comparator to cardiovert AF <7 days duration. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL to April 2020. The primary outcome was successful cardioversion at timepoint nearest 8 h after administration.
RESULTS
From 12 712 citations, 22 trials (2320 patients) were included. Thirteen trials included patients with some degree of heart failure; 19 included patients with some degree of ischaemic heart disease vs. placebo or rate-control (32% success) at 8 h, flecainide [73%, network odds ratio (OR) 7.6, 95% credible interval (CrI) 4.4-14.0], propafenone (70%, OR 4.6, CrI 2.9-7.3), and pilsicainide (59%, OR 10.0, CrI 1.8-69.0), but not amiodarone (28%, OR 1.0, CrI 0.4-2.8) were superior. Flecainide (OR 7.5, CrI 2.6-24.0) and propafenone (OR 4.5, CrI 1.6-13.0) were superior to amiodarone; propafenone vs. flecainide did not statistically differ (OR 0.6, CrI 0.3-1.1). At longest follow-up, amiodarone was superior to placebo (OR 11.0, CrI 3.2-41.0), flecainide vs. amiodarone (OR 0.79, CrI 0.19-3.1), and propafenone vs. amiodarone (OR 0.36, CrI 0.092-1.4) were not statistically different, and flecainide was superior to propafenone (OR 2.2, CrI 1.1-4.8). Atrial and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, bradyarrhythmias, and hypotension were rare with PO AADs.
CONCLUSION
Single oral dose Class 1C AADs are effective and safe for cardioversion of recent-onset AF. Flecainide may be superior to propafenone. Amiodarone is a slower acting alternative.
Topics: Amiodarone; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Atrial Fibrillation; Electric Countershock; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Propafenone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33723602
DOI: 10.1093/europace/euab014 -
European Journal of Clinical... Feb 2021The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Arrhythmias are prevalent...
BACKGROUND
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Arrhythmias are prevalent and reportedly, the second most common complication. Several mechanistic pathways are proposed to explain the pro-arrhythmic effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. A number of treatment approaches have been trialled, each with its inherent unique challenges. This rapid systematic review aimed to examine the current incidence and available treatment of arrhythmias in COVID-19, as well as barriers to implementation.
METHODS
Our search of scientific databases identified relevant published studies from 1 January 2000 until 1 June 2020. We also searched Google Scholar for grey literature. We identified 1729 publications of which 1704 were excluded.
RESULTS
The incidence and nature of arrhythmias in the setting of COVID-19 were poorly documented across studies. The cumulative incidence of arrhythmia across studies of hospitalised patients was 6.9%. Drug-induced long QT syndrome secondary to antimalarial and antimicrobial therapy was a significant contributor to arrhythmia formation, with an incidence of 14.15%. Torsades de pointes (TdP) and sudden cardiac death (SCD) were reported. Treatment strategies aim to minimise this through risk stratification and regular monitoring of corrected QT interval (QTc).
CONCLUSION
Patients with SARS-CoV-2 are at an increased risk of arrhythmias. Drug therapy is pro-arrhythmogenic and may result in TdP and SCD in these patients. Risk assessment and regular QTc monitoring are imperative for safety during the treatment course. Further studies are needed to guide future decision-making.
Topics: Anti-Arrhythmia Agents; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antimalarials; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Azithromycin; Bradycardia; COVID-19; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Electric Countershock; Hospitalization; Humans; Hydroxychloroquine; Incidence; Long QT Syndrome; SARS-CoV-2; Tachycardia, Ventricular; Torsades de Pointes; Ventricular Fibrillation; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33043453
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13428 -
Global Heart May 2020Major structural cardiovascular diseases are associated with cardiac arrhythmias, but their full spectrum remains unknown in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which we addressed...
UNLABELLED
Major structural cardiovascular diseases are associated with cardiac arrhythmias, but their full spectrum remains unknown in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), which we addressed in this systematic review. Atrial fibrillation/atrial flutter (AF/AFL) prevalence is 16-22% in heart failure, 10-28% in rheumatic heart disease, 3-7% in cardiology admissions, but <1% in the general population. Use of oral anticoagulation is heterogenous (9-79%) across SSA. The epidemiology of sudden cardiac arrest/death is less characterized in SSA. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is challenging, owing to low awareness and lack of equipment for life-support. About 18% of SSA countries have no cardiac implantable electronic devices services, leaving hundreds of millions of people without any access to treatment for advanced bradyarrhythmias, and implant rates are more than 200-fold lower than in the western world. Management of tachyarrhythmias is largely non-invasive (about 80% AF/AFL via rate-controlled strategy only), as electrophysiological study and catheter ablation centers are almost non-existent in most countries.
HIGHLIGHTS
- Atrial fibrillation/flutter prevalence is 16-22% in heart failure, 10-28% in rheumatic heart disease, 3-7% in cardiology admissions, and <1% in the general population in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).- Rates of oral anticoagulation use for CHA2DS2VASC score ≥2 are very diverse (9-79%) across SSA countries.- Data on sudden cardiac arrest are scant in SSA with low cardiopulmonary resuscitation awareness.- Low rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices insertions and rarity of invasive arrhythmia treatment centers are seen in SSA, relative to the high-income countries.
Topics: Africa South of the Sahara; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Humans; Morbidity
PubMed: 32923331
DOI: 10.5334/gh.808 -
World Journal of Cardiology Jun 2020Cardiac catheterization is among the most performed medical procedures in the modern era. There were sporadic reports indicating that cardiac arrhythmias are common...
BACKGROUND
Cardiac catheterization is among the most performed medical procedures in the modern era. There were sporadic reports indicating that cardiac arrhythmias are common during cardiac catheterization, and there are risks of developing serious and potentially life-threatening arrhythmias, such as sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF) and high-grade conduction disturbances such as complete heart block (CHB), requiring immediate interventions. However, there is lack of systematic overview of these conditions.
AIM
To systematically review existing literature and gain better understanding of the incidence of cardiac arrhythmias during cardiac catheterization, and their impact on outcomes, as well as potential approaches to minimize this risk.
METHODS
We applied a combination of terms potentially used in reports describing various cardiac arrhythmias during common cardiac catheterization procedures to systematically search PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, as well as references of full-length articles.
RESULTS
During right heart catheterization (RHC), the incidence of atrial arrhythmias (premature atrial complexes, atrial fibrillation and flutter) was low (< 1%); these arrhythmias were usually transient and self-limited. RHC associated with the development of a new RBBB at a rate of 0.1%-0.3% in individuals with normal conduction system but up to 6.3% in individuals with pre-existing left bundle branch block. These patients may require temporary pacing due to transient CHB. Isolated premature ventricular complexes or non-sustained VT are common during RHC (up to 20% of cases). Sustained ventricular arrhythmias (VT and/or VF) requiring either withdrawal of catheter or cardioversion occurred infrequently (1%-1.3%). During left heart catheterizations (LHC), the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias has declined significantly over the last few decades, from 1.1% historically to 0.1% currently. The overall reported rate of VT/VF in diagnostic LHC and coronary angiography is 0.8%. The risk of VT/VF was higher during percutaneous coronary interventions for stable coronary artery disease (1.1%) and even higher for patients with acute myocardial infarctions (4.1%-4.3%). Intravenous adenosine and papaverine bolus for fractional flow reserve measurement, as well as intracoronary imaging using optical coherence tomography have been reported to induce VF. Although uncommon, LHC and coronary angiography were also reported to induce conduction disturbances including CHB.
CONCLUSION
Cardiac arrhythmias are common and potentially serious complications of cardiac catheterization procedures, and it demands constant vigilance and readiness to intervene during procedures.
PubMed: 32774779
DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v12.i6.269 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Sep 2020Cannabis use results in elevation of heart rate and blood pressure immediately after use, primarily due to sympathetic nervous system stimulation and parasympathetic...
Cannabis use results in elevation of heart rate and blood pressure immediately after use, primarily due to sympathetic nervous system stimulation and parasympathetic nervous system inhibition. These effects may precipitate cardiac dysrhythmia. The objective of our study was to analyze systematically the pertinent medical literature regarding the putative association between cannabis use and cardiac dysrhythmia. We queried PubMed, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey, and reviewed results for relevance. We graded clinical trials, observational and retrospective studies, case series and reports using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. The relevant publications identified included one Level I systematic review and meta-analysis of six human studies, 16 Level II studies with 6,942 subjects, nine Level III studies with 3,797,096 subjects and two systematic and scoping reviews with 30 cases. Cannabis-induced tachycardia was highlighted in 17 of 28 (61%) Level I-III articles followed by a generalized description of dysrhythmia in eight (29%). Specific dysrhythmias noted in the Level I-III articles included atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, atrioventricular block, premature ventricular contractions, premature atrial contractions, ventricular tachycardia, and ventricular fibrillation. Other reported findings on electrocardiogram included ST segment elevation, P, and T wave changes. Only one Level III study reported a decreased risk of atrial fibrillation from cannabis use in patients hospitalized for heart failure (Odds ratio = 0.87). There were 39 case series (Level IV) and case reports (Level V) with 42 subjects. Average age was 30 ± 12 years, and only ten (24%) were female. The most common dysrhythmia mentioned in the Level IV and V articles was ventricular fibrillation (21%), followed by atrial fibrillation (19%), ventricular tachycardia (12%), third degree atrioventricular block (12%), and asystole (12%). There were four cases (10%) of symptomatic bradycardia. Notable electrocardiographic changes included ST segment elevation (29%), Brugada pattern in leads V1, V2 (14%), and right bundle branch block (12%). There were eight cases of cardiac arrest, of whom five expired. Cannabis use is associated with increased risk of cardiac dysrhythmia, which is rare but may be life-threatening. Clinicians and nurses should inquire about acute and chronic cannabis use in their patients presenting with tachycardia, bradycardia, dysrhythmia, chest pain, and/or unexplained syncope. Patients who use cannabis should be educated on this deleterious association, especially those with underlying cardiac disease or risk factors.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Chest Pain; Electrocardiography; Female; Humans; Male; Marijuana Use; Risk Factors; Syncope; Young Adult
PubMed: 32267189
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2020.1743847 -
Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine... May 2020Little is known about atrial involvement in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). Recent studies have suggested that atrial arrhythmia,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
Little is known about atrial involvement in patients with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC). Recent studies have suggested that atrial arrhythmia, including atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter (AFL), and atrial tachycardia, was common among these patients although the reported prevalence varied considerably across the studies. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted with the aim of comprehensively investigating the prevalence of overall atrial arrhythmia and each atrial arrhythmia subtype in the setting of ARVC by identifying all relevant studies and combining their results together.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature review was conducted by searching for published articles indexed in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception through to 22 September 2019 to identify cohort studies of patients with ARVC that described the prevalence of atrial arrhythmia among the participants. The pooled prevalence across studies was calculated using a random-effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird with a double arcsine transformation.
RESULTS
A total of 16 cohort studies with 1986 patients with ARVC were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of overall atrial arrhythmia among patients with ARVC was 17.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 13.0-24.0%; I 88%], the pooled prevalence of atrial fibrillation of 12.9% (95% CI, 9.6-17.0%; I 78%), the pooled prevalence of AFL of 5.9% (95% CI, 3.7-9.2%; I 70%), and the pooled prevalence of atrial tachycardia of 7.1% (95% CI, 3.7-13.0%; I 49%).
CONCLUSION
Atrial arrhythmia is common among patients with ARVC with the pooled prevalence of approximately 18%, which is substantially higher than the reported prevalence of atrial arrhythmia in the general population.
Topics: Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia; Atrial Fibrillation; Atrial Flutter; Humans; Prevalence; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Tachycardia, Supraventricular
PubMed: 32243340
DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000962 -
Frontiers in Genetics 2019Short QT syndrome (SQTS) is a rare syndrome and affects different types of genes. However, data on differences of clinical profile and outcome of different SQTS types...
BACKGROUND
Short QT syndrome (SQTS) is a rare syndrome and affects different types of genes. However, data on differences of clinical profile and outcome of different SQTS types are sparse.
METHODS
We conducted a pooled analysis of 110 SQTS patients. Patients have been diagnosed between 2000 and 2017 at our institution (n = 12) and revealed using a literature review (n = 98). 29 studies were identified by analysing systematic data bases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Libary, Cinahl).
RESULTS
67 patients with genotype positive SQTS origin and 43 patients with genotype negative origin were found. A significant difference is documented between the sex with a higher predominance of male in genotype negative SQTS patients and predominance of females in genotype positive SQTS patients (male 52% versus 84%, female 45% versus 14%; p = 0.0016). No relevant difference of their median age (genotype positive 27 ± 19 versus genotype negative 29 ± 15; p = 0.48) was found. Asymptomatic patients and patients reporting symptoms such as syncope, sudden cardiac death, atrial flutter and ventricular fibrillation documented in both groups were similar except atrial fibrillation (genotype positive 19% versus genotype negative 0%; p = 0.0055). The QTc interval was not significantly different in both groups (genotype positive 315 ± 32 versus genotype negative 320 ± 19; p = 0.30). The treatments (medical treatment and ICD implantation) in both groups were comparable. Electrophysiology studies were not significantly higher documented in patients with genotype positive and negative origin (24% versus 9%; p = 0.075). Events at follow up such as VT, VF, and SCD were not higher presented in patients with genotype positive (13% versus 9%) (p = 0.25). 54% of genotype positive SQTS patients showed SQTS 1 followed by STQS 2 (21%) and SQTS 3 (10%).
CONCLUSIONS
The long-term risk of a malignant arrhythmic event is not higher in patients with genotype positive. However, patients with genotype positive present themselves more often with AF with a female predominance. Also, other events at follow up such as syncope, atrial flutter and palpitation were not significantly higher (9% versus 0%; p = 0.079).
PubMed: 32010184
DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.01312 -
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