Effect of oral β-blocker treatment on mortality in contemporary post-myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Magnus Dahl Aarvik Irene Sandven Tatendashe B Dondo Chris P Gale Vidar Ruddox John Munkhaugen Dan Atar Jan Erik Otterstad
Guidelines concerning β-blocker treatment following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are based on studies undertaken before the implementation of reperfusion and secondary prevention therapies. We aimed to estimate the effect of oral β-blockers ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/coreutils/nwds/img/favicons/favicon.ico
PubMed Central (PMC)
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother. 2019 Jan; 5(1): 12–20.

PMCID: PMC6321955

PMID: 30192930

Effect of oral β-blocker treatment on mortality in contemporary post-myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

,1 ,2 ,3 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,1,6 and 4

Magnus Dahl Aarvik

1Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Oslo, Sognsvannsveien 9, Oslo, Norway

Find articles by Magnus Dahl Aarvik

Irene Sandven

2Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Sogn Arena, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway

Find articles by Irene Sandven

Tatendashe B Dondo

3Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicince, Clarendon Way, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Find articles by Tatendashe B Dondo

Chris P Gale

3Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicince, Clarendon Way, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

Find articles by Chris P Gale

Vidar Ruddox

4Department of Cardiology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, N-3103 Toensberg, Norway

Find articles by Vidar Ruddox

John Munkhaugen

5Department of Medicine, Drammen Hospital, Vestre Viken Trust, Wergelandsgate 10, Drammen, Norway

Find articles by John Munkhaugen

Dan Atar

1Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Oslo, Sognsvannsveien 9, Oslo, Norway

6Department of Cardiology B, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal, Kirkeveien 166, Oslo, Norway

Find articles by Dan Atar

Jan Erik Otterstad

4Department of Cardiology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, N-3103 Toensberg, Norway

Find articles by Jan Erik Otterstad

1Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Oslo, Sognsvannsveien 9, Oslo, Norway

2Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Sogn Arena, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway

3Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicince, Clarendon Way, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

4Department of Cardiology, Vestfold Hospital Trust, N-3103 Toensberg, Norway

5Department of Medicine, Drammen Hospital, Vestre Viken Trust, Wergelandsgate 10, Drammen, Norway

6Department of Cardiology B, Oslo University Hospital, Ullevaal, Kirkeveien 166, Oslo, Norway

Corresponding author. Tel: +47 916 62 603, Fax: +47 333 43950, Email: on.vis@datsretto.kire.naj

Copyright © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

pvy034_supplementary_file.docx (1.4M)

GUID: 6CC26EBE-9F54-4CEB-9180-B45197140CAE

Abstract

Aims

Guidelines concerning β-blocker treatment following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are based on studies undertaken before the implementation of reperfusion and secondary prevention therapies. We aimed to estimate the effect of oral β-blockers on mortality in contemporary post-AMI patients with low prevalence of heart failure and/or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Methods and results

A random effects model was used to synthetize results of 16 observational studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 October 2017. Publication bias was evaluated, and heterogeneity between studies examined by subgroup and random effects meta-regression analyses considering patient-related and study-level variables. The pooled estimate showed that β-blocker treatment [among 164 408 (86.8%) patients, with median follow-up time of 2.7 years] was associated with a 26% reduction in all-cause mortality [rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64–0.85] with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 67.4%). The patient-level variable mean age of the cohort explained 31.5% of between study heterogeneity. There was presence of publication bias, or small study effect, and when controlling for bias by the trim and fill simulation method, the effect disappeared (adjusted RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77–1.04). Also, small study effect was demonstrated by a cumulative meta-analysis starting with the largest study showing no effect, with increasing effect as the smaller studies were accumulated.

Conclusion

Evidence from this study suggests that there is no association between β-blockers and all-cause mortality. A possible beneficial effect in AMI survivors needs to be tested by large randomized clinical trials.

Keywords: Beta-blocker, Mortality, Myocardial infarction, PCI, Secondary prevention

Introduction

Oral β-blockers have been a central component of secondary prevention pharmacotherapy following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) irrespective of its severity for decades. Recent international guidelines on the management of coronary disease, however, call into question the efficacy of β-blockers.1–4 The foremost reason for this is because studies of β-blockers among patients following AMI were conducted prior to the implementation of acute coronary revascularization and the use of modern secondary preventive treatments.

Moreover, landmark studies which established the rationale for the routine use of long-term oral β-blockade after AMI were published in the early 1980s.5,6 The only randomized large-scale β-blocker trial conducted in patients following AMI in recent years,7 found no prognostic benefit of early intravenous metoprolol followed by 4 weeks of oral treatment compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials did not find a mortality effect associated with β-blockers in studies from the reperfusion era, as opposed to a significant reduction in mortality for studies published in the pre-reperfusion era.8

The incidence of AMI remains high and many patients with AMI who do not have reduced left ventricular systolic ejection fraction (LVEF) and/or heart failure (HF) receive oral β-blockers. Whilst β-blockers are considered relatively safe and inexpensive, they do have well-known side effects, and adherence to other (potentially more efficacious) secondary preventive medications may wane as a result of concomitant use of β-blockers.9 Given the absence of randomized controlled trials to test the efficacy of β-blockers in contemporary AMI patients without reduced left ventricular function or HF are lacking, meta-analyses of population-based studies are potentially of value for guiding β-blocker treatment in clinical practice.

We hypothesized that the survival benefit of β-blockers observed in historical trials may not be present in the contemporary post-AMI population. As such, we aimed to estimate the effect of oral β-blockers on mortality in patients with both ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) where the majority of patients did not have reduced LVEF and/or no clinical signs of HF.

Methods

The review protocol is registered at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, ID: CRD42017079199.

Eligibility criteria

All study types and sizes published after 1 January 2000 concerning patients following AMI were eligible for inclusion. Studies where none or only a minority of patients had a history of HF, were in Killip class ≥III or had LVEF <40% at baseline, were included. It was anticipated that not all studies would have complete data on these three categories reflecting HF and/or left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. Studies that did not provide estimates between the β-blocker group and the no β-blocker group were excluded.

Study selection and search

The literature search strategy is presented in Supplementary material online, Tables S1 and S2. We searched the electronic bibliographic databases Embase and Medline(r) for studies written in English from inception until 18 July 2017, with an additional search undertaken per 30 October 2017. After removal of duplicate references, two members of the review team undertook initial screening of article titles and abstracts. Potentially, relevant articles were obtained in full-text and read independently by three review team members. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Reference lists were scrutinized to identify articles not included in the original search.

Quality assessment

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies10 was used to assess the quality of the included studies according to (i) methods for study participant selection, (ii) appropriate control for confounding (comparability), and (iii) methods for assessing the outcome. We further assessed the timing of the study (prospective vs. retrospective), and methods used to control for confounding (propensity score analysis vs. multivariate analysis).

Data abstraction

The primary endpoint considered was all-cause mortality.

Publication status, study design, patient-related characteristics, and results were extracted on a standardized form according to an a priori protocol. Investigators were contacted for additional data. Patient-related variables were mean age of the cohort, frequency of male sex, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, smoking, previous myocardial infarction (MI); treatment with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), statins, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)/angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), in addition to LVEF, Killip class, history of HF, STEMI/NSTEMI, and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Quantitative data synthesis

Statistical pooling

The method used to combine results from individual studies, was based on the adjusted risk estimate and its 95% confidence intervals (CIs) obtained from each study. To obtain summary measures, a random effects model according to the DerSimonian Laird method11 was used because of the heterogeneity among studies.

Sources of heterogeneity, evaluation and quantification

Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran’s Q test and its magnitude evaluated by the I2 statistics (I2 values of 25%, 50%, and 75% indicate low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively).12 A series of sensitivity analyses were undertaken, including subgroup analyses and meta-regression to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in the association between β-blocker treatment and mortality. Data were stratified according to the following study level variables; prospective vs. retrospective study design, statistical methods used to control for confounding (propensity score vs. multivariable analysis), and the following patient-level variables; country (Asia vs. US/Europe), AMI type (STEMI vs. STEMI/NSTEMI or unclear), and revascularization (only PCI treated patients vs. mixed or unclear). Subgroup analyses were extended by a random-effect meta-regression analysis that allowed the effect of the continuous covariates to be investigated (such as in years; median follow-up time and mean age, and in percent; LVEF, male sex, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and smoking) as well as the categorical covariates used in the subgroup analysis. Meta-regression was performed to explore the influence of each covariate on the effect of β-blockers. If the covariate decreased the between-study variance, the source of heterogeneity was considered important. The estimate of τ2 in the presence of a covariate in comparison to that when the covariate is omitted allowed the proportion of the heterogeneity variance explained by the covariate to be calculated.13

Finally, a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to investigate the influence of each study by omitting each in turn from the meta-analysis and assessing the degree to which the magnitude and significance of the exposure effect changed.14

Evaluation of publication bias or small-study effect

Publication bias is known to occur in meta-analyses, as studies that show a statistically significant effect of treatment are more likely to be published. Such selective publication of studies may lead to biased estimates that appear to be precise in meta-analysis based on literature search. In order to assess potential publication bias or small-study effect, we used the funnel-plot, which is a good visual evaluation of sampling bias. Funnel plot asymmetry raises the possibility of bias, and leads to a questioning of the interpretation of the overall effect when studies are combined in a meta-analysis. Sterne et al.15 have suggested that the funnel plot should be seen as a generic means of examining small study effect, which is the tendency for smaller studies in a meta-analysis to show larger treatment effects. To avoid evaluating publication bias only according to visually judgement, this was complemented by Egger’s test of asymmetry applied on the funnel plot.16

We used the trim and fill simulation method to detect and control for bias.17 In the presence of publication bias, the trim and fill method could help reduce bias in pooled estimates. Even though the performance is not ideal, this method is a kind of sensitivity analysis to assess the potential impact of missing studies. This then allows an adjusted overall estimate with CI to be calculated. A test of the presence of bias could be derived from this method based on the estimated number of missing studies. The estimated effect of the missing studies provides an indication of whether the imputed missing studies affect the overall result of the meta-analysis.

We followed the PRISMA guidelines for meta-analyses and systematic reviews of observational studies in reporting the present study.18 All statistical analyses were performed with Stata version 15 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) or R Package-meta (Guido Schwarzer, R News 2007).

Results

Study selection

After identifying 7529 references, 7499 were excluded due to irrelevant content and duplicate publications, leaving 30 potentially eligible studies. Fourteen of these did not fulfil the inclusion criteria (see Supplementary material online, Table S3) and 16 studies19–34 were thus included in the meta-analysis (Figure ). Additional data were obtained for three studies.23,29,34

Study characteristics

Study characteristics are shown in Table . The pooled cohort comprised 189 385 patients with AMI. The median age was 64.6 years (range 57.7–68.6 years), 75% was men (range 69.0–81.8%), and median follow-up was 2.7 years (range 0.5–5.2 years). Of ten studies providing information, median LVEF was 53.7% (range 48.9–60.4%). Only four studies used a predefined LVEF cut-off value for inclusion, being >40% in two studies31,33 and ≥ 50% in two.26,29 Eleven studies provided information about history of HF, with a median prevalence of 1.8% (range 0–27.3%). Eight studies provided information about Killip class ≤2 with a median prevalence of 90.6% (range 85.3–100%). On average, 30% of patients had diabetes, 52% hypertension, 6% previous MI, and 45% were smokers when included. Average percentages for concomitant treatments were 94% with aspirin, 69% with statins, and 64% with ARBs/ACEIs. Ten studies were on Asian populations, and six on North American or European populations.

Table 1

First author (Publication year)CountryInclusion periodβ- BlockerTotal cohortControl for confoundingTiming of the studyFollow-up (years), medianAge (years), meanMen (%)STEMI (%)PCIa (%)LVEF (%)History of HF (%)Killip ≤2 (%)Diabetes (%)Hypert- ension (%)Smoking (%)Prior MI (%)ASA (%)Statins (%)ARB/ ACEi(%)Kernis (2004)19USA/ Europe1991–199916612442PS adjustedRetrospective0.560.673.710010048.92.398.716.644.966.213.8———Yamada (2006)20Japan1994–2001400546MultivariateProspective2.063.075.582.5b61.154.0—87.737.441.364.3092.131.951.6Ozasa (2010)21Japan2004–2006349910PS adjustedRetrospective3.067.476.010010052.317.0—38.068.038.0899.154.676.2Bangalorec (2012)22USA/ Europe2003–200433796758PS matchedRetrospective3.668.675.1———22.3—37.373.69.7—75.874.569.4Bao (2013)23Japan2005–200716143692MultivariateRetrospective2.667.174.610010053.527.3—31.478.741.68.699.556.675.7Nakatani (2013)24Japan1998–201128805628PS adjustedRetrospective3.964.777.3100100——85.4d32.859.565.910.994.644.377.1Bangalorec (2014)25USA/ Europe2002–20039811962PS matchedRetrospective2.364.579.4———0—35.469.718.2—98.080.417.7Choo (2014)26Korea2004–200924243019PS adjustedRetrospective3.061.373.258.110060.4—93.840.650.044.03.399.790.481.8Yang (2014)27Korea2005–201026503975PS matchedRetrospective1.065.773.010010050.00.985.325.343.645.76.598.680.875.9Lee (2015)28Korea2003–2009598901MultivariateRetrospective4.557.779.510010051.7—87.921.940.164.83.299.266.393.2Raposeiras-Roubín (2015)29Spain2003–20125551110PS matchedRetrospective5.266.169.028.065.2—e10.8—25.956.727.6987.282.858.9Hioki (2016)30Japan2008–2010251444PS adjustedRetrospective2.965.781.881.810056.1—10024.122.765.1——10085.1Konishi (2016)31Japan1997–2011103206PS matchedRetrospective4.764.680.610010056.40—41.361.735.9099.051.580.1Leef (2016)32Korea2009–201336837261MultivariateRetrospective2.462.575.1—100—2.9—27.130.1—088.093.10Puymiratg (2016)33France200517832217MultivariateProspective1.064.472.056.048.755.0010031.854.832.514.5—32.237.5Dondo (2017)34UK2007–2013141 097148 314PS adjustedRetrospective1.063.571.053.045.9h—0—11.433.662.3096.796.388.3

In total, 86.8% (n = 164 408) of the pooled cohort received β-blockers. Information about β-blocker type and dose was provided in two studies,23,33 five studies reported only the type prescribed at hospital discharge,24,26,28,30,32 and for the remaining nine studies no information was provided (see Supplementary material online, Table S4 for further information about study β-blocker types and doses). Follow-up information concerning dose changes, discontinuation or new β-blocker prescriptions was not available for any of the included studies.

Two studies22,25 included subpopulations with prior MI eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. All studies were cohort by design, of which 14 were retrospective. For 11 studies, confounding was controlled for on multiple clinically relevant variables by propensity score analysis, and multivariable analysis in five studies (see Supplementary material online, Tables S5 and S6). The quality of studies according to the NOS was excellent, with seven studies achieving 9/9 and nine achieving 8/9 stars (see Supplementary material online, Table S7).

Quantitative data synthesis

The pooled estimate from the 16 studies (Figure ) found that oral β-blockers compared with no oral β-blockers were associated with a 26% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality [rate ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.64–0.85] with moderate between study heterogeneity (I2 = 67.4%). The funnel plot visually showed the possibility of bias or small-study effect (Figure ) confirmed by the Egger’s test (P = 0.001). The trim and fill simulation method suggested seven studies as missing, and the imputed point estimate was altered (adjusted RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77–1.04). This indicates a change in magnitude and significance of the pooled effect after correction for publication bias or small-study effect. The cumulative meta-analysis starting with the largest study showed no effect, with increasing effect as the smaller studies were accumulated (Figure ).

According to the pre-specified subgroup analysis (Table ), the stratified pooled meta-analyses demonstrated no substantial differences in effect of oral β-blockers on all-cause mortality.

Table 2

SubdivisionNRR (95% CI)RR = 1, ZP-valueVariation in RR due to heterogeneity, I2 (%)All studies160.74 (0.64–0.85)4.20<0.00167.4ST-elevation myocardial infarction All patients70.70 (0.52–0.93)2.440.01570.3 Mixed/unclear90.78 (0.67–0.91)3.160.00261.9PCI All patients100.68 (0.54–0.86)3.290.00165.9 Mixed/unclear60.83 (0.71–0.97)2.390.01757.8Follow-up by quartiles 0.5–1.5 years40.64 (0.41–1.01)1.900.05782.0 1.5–2.7 years40.85 (0.70–1.03)1.670.09519.9 2.7–3.8 years40.75 (0.51–1.10)1.480.13868.6 3.8–5.2 years40.68 (0.51–0.91)2.640.00861.3Timing of the study Prospective20.65 (0.44–0.98)2.080.0380.0 Retrospective140.75 (0.65–0.87)3.86<0.00169.8Control for confounding Propensity score analysis110.74 (0.62–0.78)3.480.00170.0 Multivariate analysis50.74 (0.56–0.97)2.190.02961.4

We extended the analyses with meta-regression, and the results are presented in Table . One covariate was associated with mortality risk; the patient related variable ‘mean age of the cohort’ showing decreasing effect of β-blockers on mortality with increasing age of the patients accounting for 31.5% of between study heterogeneity. Of note is that neither subtype of AMI, LVEF, history of HF, length of follow-up, concomitant medical therapy, or ethnicity of the cohort was significantly associated with mortality.

Table 3

CovariatesNLevelβ-CoefficientStandard errortP-valueaτ2bHeterogeneity (%)None16—−0.31050.0794−3.910.0010.05396—ST-elevation myocardial infarction161/0−0.06490.1674−0.390.7040.05861−8.63PCI161/0−0.13250.1625−0.820.4290.05621−4.16Median follow-up time16Years0.00640.05970.110.9170.06240−15.65Mean left ventricular ejection fraction10Percent0.01330.03790.350.7340.08332−18.63Mean age of patients in the cohort16Years0.05300.02452.160.0490.0369731.48Frequency in cohort Men16Percent−0.01300.0252−0.520.6140.06012−11.42 Diabetes mellitus16Percent0.00510.00940.540.5960.06396−18.53 Hypertension16Percent0.00810.00501.630.1250.05842−8.27 Smokers15Percent−0.00520.0045−1.150.2700.06757−11.18 Previous MI13Percent−0.00370.0184−0.200.8430.06657−13.04 Heart failure11Percent0.01090.00801.350.2090.04209−14.71 ASA13Percent−0.00770.0102−0.760.4630.04577−12.21 Statin15Percent−0.00110.0039−0.300.7720.04979−18.09 ARB/ACEi15Percent−0.00140.0029−0.490.6330.05040−19.55Country (Asia vs. USA/Europe)161/0−0.07890.1651−0.480.6400.05978−10.79Prospective timing of the study161/0−0.14150.2901−0.490.6330.05640−4.52Propensity score analysis161/0−0.01600.1778−0.090.9300.06191−14.73

The robustness of the primary result obtained from the 16 studies was supported in the influential analysis. When omitting one study at a time from the meta-analysis a stable pooled estimate was shown (see Supplementary material online, Table S8).

Discussion

This meta-analysis of 16 cohort studies comprising 189 385 patients following AMI of whom only a minority had reduced LVEF and/or clinical HF found that the use of oral β-blockers was associated with a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality. However, publication bias or small-study effect was found to influence the result with diluted effect seen after correction of small-study effect. Heterogeneity could be explained by the patient related variable mean age of the cohort.

β-Blockers have long since been a pharmacotherapy for the management of AMI, but currently their role in the treatment of AMI could be called into question. In the 1980’s, after a series of randomized controlled trials showed improved outcomes and reduced mortality, β-blockers were approved for the treatment of AMI.5,6,35 However, these trials preceded the reperfusion era and enrolled mainly patients with large infarcts and/or HF. Meta-analyses of recent observational studies of the impact of β-blockers after AMI on mortality suggest a beneficial effect.36,37 Misumida et al.36 included six subgroups of patients with preserved LVEF, treated with primary PCI for STEMI (n = 10 857). In this selected population, oral β-blockers compared with no oral β-blockers were associated with a 21% reduction in all-cause mortality. Huang et al.37 included ten studies of whom the majority had STEMI, and eight with early revascularization to find that β-blockers were associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality for all subgroups, except those with sample size ≤1000 and those with preserved LVEF. Our study contrasts from Misumida et al. and Huang et al. by including larger studies, and with both STEMI and NSTEMI patients. Therefore, as opposed to the two other studies, this meta-analysis represents a more general post-AMI population with both subtypes of MI where the majority of patients are treated with an oral β-blocker, even in the absence of HF or reduced LVEF.

Our results based upon the largest studies are further supported by a recent registry study of 90 869 Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years who had prescriptions for ACE-inhibitors, ARBs, β-blockers, or statins and survived AMI ≥180 days.9 Only those patients who were adherent to ACE-inhibitors/ARBs and statins had similar mortality rates to those adherent to all therapies, including β-blockers—suggesting limited additional mortality benefit from β-blockers. The problem with non-adherence to a medication may have been an important confounder. If sicker patients discontinue a medication more commonly than their healthy peers, the benefits of adherence to that medication will be exaggerated. In contrast, the directionality of bias may be the opposite for β-blockers. Those with disease progression and recurrent events may be more adherent to their β-blockers, whereas younger, healthier individuals may be more susceptible to real or perceived β-blocker side effects, and thus less adherent.38

The use of β-blockers following AMI is based upon historical evidence and nowadays applied to a different treatment and population landscape. Moreover, international advances in the management of AMI have resulted in a decline in deaths,39,40 and it is possible that in this context β-blockers may have lost some of their effectiveness.

Limitations

The lack of international consensus about the effectiveness of β-blockers following AMI among patients without HF is, in part, a reflection of the lack of contemporary randomized evidence. Consequently, inferences are left to be drawn from observational data, which have inherent bias. Beyond smaller cohort studies, which (as seen in this study) may impact upon the direction of pooled estimates, cohort studies of the effectiveness of pharmacotherapies are weakened by selection and confounding bias as well as missing data. Even though some of the studies included in our meta-analysis used propensity score methods, residual confounding may remain at play. Our investigation is further limited by publication bias, or small-study effect, which may lead to biased estimates which appear precise.13

Compromises were made in this meta-analysis regarding the number of patients with HF in each study. A small percentage of patients had a history of HF (albeit between 20% and 30% in two studies), were in Killip class ≥3 and were assumed to have LVEF <40%. Based upon these, in part incomplete data, we have not been able to express a more clear cut-off for the definition of HF than the statement of a majority of patients being without HF and/or LV systolic dysfunction. In the meta-regression model presented in Table , neither a history of HF nor mean LVEF was significantly associated with mortality.

We did not have information from the included studies about the type, dose, persistence, and new prescription of β-blockers, which may have skewed their impact on mortality. In the study of Puymirat et al.33 neither type of β-blockers at discharge nor dose was related to mortality after adjustment for age and GRACE score. Similar findings were reported by Goldberger et al.41 who could not demonstrate increased survival in patients treated with β-blockers in doses approximating those used in prior randomized trials compared with lower doses. The authors state, however, that an important caveat for their findings is that they do not represent randomized clinical trial results.

Conclusions

The results from this meta-analysis of nearly 200 000 patients following AMI of whom only a minority had reduced LVEF and/or clinical signs of HF, provides evidence that the association between β-blockers and long-term survival is due to small study effect, and that there might not be a significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality when controlling for bias. To be conclusive as for the efficacy of β-blockers on mortality in patients without HF following AMI, randomized controlled trials are a necessary next step.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary File

Click here for additional data file.(1.4M, docx)

Acknowledgements

Librarian Julie Skattebu at the Hospital of Vestfold, Norway has provided valuable efforts for conducting the systematic search of studies to be included. The authors declare no interests of conflict concerning the present study.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the Department for Cardiology, the hospital of Vestfold (grant number 703110, project 19440).

Conflict of interest: none declared.

References

1. O'Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, Casey DE Jr, Chung MK, de Lemos JA, Ettinger SM, Fang JC, Fesmire FM, Franklin BA, Granger CB, Krumholz HM, Linderbaum JA, Morrow DA, Newby LK, Ornato JP, Ou N, Radford MJ, Tamis-Holland JE, Tommaso CL, Tracy CM, Woo YJ, Zhao DX, Anderson JL, Jacobs AK, Halperin JL, Albert NM, Brindis RG, Creager MA, DeMets D, Guyton RA, Hochman JS, Kovacs RJ, Kushner FG, Ohman EM, Stevenson WG, Yancy CW.. ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;61:e78–e140. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, Casey DE Jr, Ganiats TG, Holmes DR Jr, Jaffe AS, Jneid H, Kelly RF, Kontos MC, Levine GN, Liebson PR, Mukherjee D, Peterson ED, Sabatine MS, Smalling RW, Zieman SJ.. AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;64:e139–e228. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet J-P, Mueller C, Valgimigli M, Andreotti F, Bax JJ, Borger MA, Brotons C, Chew DP, Gencer B, Hasenfuss G, Kjeldsen K, Lancellotti P, Landmesser U, Mehilli J, Mukherjee D, Storey RF, Windecker S.. 2015 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: task force for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2016;37:267–315. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H, Caforio ALP, Crea F, Goudevenos JA, Halvorsen S, Hindricks G, Kastrati A, Lenzen MJ, Prescott E, Roffi M, Valgimigli M, Varenhorst C, Vranckx P, Widimsky P.. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2018;39:119–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction. I. Mortality results. JAMA 1982;247:1707–1714. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Group NMS. Timolol-induced reduction in mortality and reinfarction in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1981;304:801–807. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Chen ZM, Pan HC, Chen YP. et al. Early intravenous then oral metoprolol in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1622–1632. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Bangalore S, Makani H, Radford M, Thakur K, Toklu B, Katz SD, DiNicolantonio JJ, Devereaux PJ, Alexander KP, Wetterslev J, Messerli FH.. Clinical outcomes with beta-blockers for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Med 2014;127:939–953. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Korhonen MJ, Robinson JG, Annis IE, Hickson RP, Bell JS, Hartikainen J, Fang G.. Adherence tradeoff to multiple preventive therapies and all-cause mortality after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1543–1554. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Wells GASB, O’Connell D.. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality in Non-Randomized Studies in Meta-Analysis. Ottawa, Canada: Ottawa Health Research Institute; 1999. [Google Scholar]

11. DerSimonian R, Laird N.. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986;7:177–188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG.. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557–560. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Egger M, Davey-Smith S, Altman DG, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 1995. [Google Scholar]

14. Viechtbauer W, Cheung MW.. Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2010;1:112–125. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Sterne JA, Egger M, Smith GD.. Systematic reviews in health care: investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 2001;323:101–105. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C.. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–634. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Duval S, Tweedie R.. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000;56:455–463. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG.. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264–269, w64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Kernis SJ, Harjai KJ, Stone GW, Grines LL, Boura JA, O’Neill WW, Grines CL.. Does beta-blocker therapy improve clinical outcomes of acute myocardial infarction after successful primary angioplasty? J Am Coll Cardiol 2004;43:1773–1779. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Yamada K, Tsuji H, Tokunaga S, Kurimoto K, Maeba H, Matsuhisa S, Inami N, Iwasaka T.. Effect of beta-blockers on the mortality of Japanese patients with myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol 2006;108:309–313. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Ozasa N, Kimura T, Morimoto T, Hou H, Tamura T, Shizuta S, Nakagawa Y, Furukawa Y, Hayashi Y, Nakao K, Matsuzaki M, Nobuyoshi M, Mitsudo K.. Lack of effect of oral beta-blocker therapy at discharge on long-term clinical outcomes of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2010;106:1225–1233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Bangalore S, Steg G, Deedwania P, Crowley K, Eagle KA, Goto S, Ohman EM, Cannon CP, Smith SC, Zeymer U, Hoffman EB, Messerli FH, Bhatt DL, Reach Registry Investigators FT.. β-Blocker use and clinical outcomes in stable outpatients with and without coronary artery disease. JAMA 2012;308:1340–1349. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Bao B, Ozasa N, Morimoto T, Furukawa Y, Nakagawa Y, Kadota K, Iwabuchi M, Shizuta S, Shiomi H, Tada T, Tazaki J, Kato Y, Hayano M, Natsuaki M, Fujiwara H, Mitsudo K, Nobuyoshi M, Kita T, Kimura T. β -Blocker therapy and cardiovascular outcomes in patients who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention after ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Cardiovasc Interv Ther 2013;28:139–147. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Nakatani D, Sakata Y, Suna S, Usami M, Matsumoto S, Shimizu M, Hara M, Uematsu M, Fukunami M, Hamasaki T, Sato H, Hori M, Komuro I.. Impact of beta blockade therapy on long-term mortality after ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction in the percutaneous coronary intervention era. Am J Cardiol 2013;111:457–464. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Bangalore S, Bhatt DL, Steg PG, Weber MA, Boden WE, Hamm CW, Montalescot G, Hsu A, Fox KA, Lincoff AM.. β-blockers and cardiovascular events in patients with and without myocardial infarction: post hoc analysis from the CHARISMA trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014;7:872–881. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Choo EH, Chang K, Ahn Y, Jeon DS, Lee JM, Kim DB, Her SH, Park CS, Kim HY, Yoo KD, Jeong MH, Seung KB.. Benefit of β-blocker treatment for patients with acute myocardial infarction and preserved systolic function after percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart 2014;100:492–499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Yang JH, Hahn JY, Song YB, Choi SH, Choi JH, Lee SH, Kim JH, Ahn YK, Jeong MH, Choi DJ, Park JS, Kim YJ, Park HS, Han KR, Rha SW, Gwon HC.. Association of β-blocker therapy at discharge with clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:592–601. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Lee YH, Park JS, Tahk SJ, Hwang GS, Yoon MH, Choi SY, Choi BJ, Lim HS, Yang HM, Seo KW, Shin JH.. β-Blocker therapy in the era of primary percutaneous intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction. Cardiology 2015;132:91–100. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Raposeiras-Roubín S, Abu-Assi E, Redondo-Diéguez A, González-Ferreiro R, López-López A, Bouzas-Cruz N, Castiñeira-Busto M, Peña Gil C, García-Acuña JM, González-Juanatey JR.. Prognostic benefit of beta-blockers after acute coronary syndrome with preserved systolic function. Still relevant today? Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed) 2015;68:585–591. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Hioki H, Motoki H, Izawa A, Kashima Y, Miura T, Ebisawa S, Tomita T, Miyashita Y, Koyama J, Ikeda U.. Impact of oral beta-blocker therapy on mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for Killip class 1 myocardial infarction. Heart Vessels 2016;31:687–693. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Konishi H, Miyauchi K, Kasai T, Tsuboi S, Ogita M, Naito R, Nishizaki Y, Okai I, Tamura H, Okazaki S, Isoda K, Daida H.. Long-term effect of beta-blocker in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function: a propensity analysis. Heart Vessels 2016;31:441–448. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Lee PH, Park GM, Kim YH, Yun SC, Chang M, Roh JH, Yoon SH, Ahn JM, Park DW, Kang SJ, Lee SW, Lee CW, Park SW, Park SJ.. Effect of beta blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors on survival in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e2971.. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Puymirat E, Riant E, Aissoui N. et al. β blockers and mortality after myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure: multicentre prospective cohort study. BMJ 2016;354:i4801. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Dondo TB, Hall M, West RM, Jernberg T, Lindahl B, Bueno H, Danchin N, Deanfield JE, Hemingway H, Fox KAA, Timmis AD, Gale CP.. β-Blockers and mortality after acute myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure or ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:2710–2720. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Hjalmarson A, Herlitz J, Holmberg S, Rydén L, Swedberg K, Vedin A, Waagstein F, Waldenström A, Waldenström J, Wedel H, Wilhelmsen L, Wilhelmsson C.. The Goteborg metoprolol trial. Effects on mortality and morbidity in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1983;67:I26–I32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Misumida N, Harjai K, Kernis S, Kanei Y.. Does oral beta-blocker therapy improve long-term survival in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with preserved systolic function? A meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 2016;21:280–285. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Huang BT, Huang FY, Zuo ZL, Liao YB, Heng Y, Wang PJ, Gui YY, Xia TL, Xin ZM, Liu W, Zhang C, Chen SJ, Pu XB, Chen M, Huang DJ.. Meta-analysis of relation between oral beta-blocker therapy and outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2015;115:1529–1538. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Peterson ED, Navar AM.. “Sticky” issues for adherence in secondary prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:1555–1557. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Fox KA, Steg PG, Eagle KA, Goodman SG, Anderson FA, Granger CB, Flather MD, Budaj A, Quill A, Gore JM.. Decline in rates of death and heart failure in acute coronary syndromes, 1999–2006. JAMA 2007;297:1892–1900. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Hall M, Dondo TB, Yan AT, Goodman SG, Bueno H, Chew DP, Brieger D, Timmis A, Batin PD, Deanfield JE, Hemingway H, Fox KAA, Gale CP.. Association of clinical factors and therapeutic strategies with improvements in survival following non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 2003-2013. JAMA 2016;316:1073–1082. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Goldberger JJ, Bonow RO, Cuffe M, Liu L, Rosenberg Y, Shah PK, Smith SC, Subačius H.. Effect of beta-blocker dose on survival after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:1431–1441. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press