Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Circulation
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
« Previous Article | Table of Contents | Next Article »
Circulation. 2002;106:394-398
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000019582.39797.EF
Free Article
This Article
Free upon publication Free Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gheorghiade, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gheorghiade, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Acute myocardial infarction

(Circulation. 2002;106:394.)
© 2002 American Heart Association, Inc.

Clinician Update

ß-Blockers in the Post–Myocardial Infarction Patient

Mihai Gheorghiade, MD; Sidney Goldstein, MD

From the Division of Cardiology (M.G.), Northwestern Feinberg Medical School, Chicago, Ill; and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine (S.G.), Henry Ford Heart and Vascular Institute, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich.

Correspondence to Mihai Gheorghiade, MD, Northwestern Feinberg Medical School, 201 E Huron St, Galter 10-240, Chicago, IL 60611. E-mail m-gheorghiade{at}northwestern.edu


*    Introduction
up arrowTop
 *Introduction
down arrowConclusion
 down arrowReferences
 
Case 1: A 76-year-old man was diagnosed with an ST-segment elevation anterior wall myocardial infarction (MI) and underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement. After 3 days, the left ventricular ejection fraction was 35%. He was prescribed aspirin, clopidogrel, an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and a statin.

Case 2: A 67-year-old woman with history of hypertension was diagnosed with a non–ST-elevation MI. The left ventricular ejection fraction was 50%. She initially was given an intravenous ß-blocker, nitrates, aspirin, an ACE inhibitor, and a statin.

Should long-term ß-blockers be recommended for both of these patients?

The 2001 American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) guidelines for secondary prevention of MI and death recommend initiating ß-blockade in all post-MI patients and continuing therapy indefinitely.1

Despite strong evidence supporting the use of ß-blockers in the post-MI period, less than half of MI patients are prescribed ß-blockers in the chronic setting.2,3 Physician reluctance to use ß-blockers after acute MI may be related to: (1) a perceived decline of benefits due to the introduction of antiplatelet agents, ACE inhibitors, statins, and revascularization procedures; (2) concerns about safety in patients with heart failure (HF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes mellitus, and/or old age; (3) side effect profile; and (4) perceived lack of benefit in non–ST-elevation MI.

Use of ß-Blockade in Contemporary Management of Post-MI Patients
Since it was first reported in 1965 that administration of propranolol after acute MI reduced mortality,4 a number of studies have been conducted to confirm this observation.5 The largest were the ß-Blocker Heart Attack Trial (BHAT)6 and the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group7 trial studying nonselective ß-blockers. In the BHAT trial (which monitored 3837 post-MI patients for 27 months), propranolol significantly reduced overall mortality by 26% compared with placebo.8 The Norwegian Multicenter Study Group (which monitored 1884 post-MI patients for 12 to 33 months) demonstrated a 39% reduction in mortality and a 28% reduction in the reinfarction rate with timolol (Table 1).7


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Comparison of Major ß-Blocker Trials in the Chronic Post-MI Period

Although the results of these studies represented a major advance in post-MI management, they predated the era of modern therapy and did not include patients with HF. With the addition of ACE inhibition into post-MI management algorithms, some clinicians questioned the added value of ß-blockers. Nevertheless, the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) and Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) trials showed that ß-blockers provided an additional reduction in cardiovascular mortality independent of the use of ACE inhibitors.9,10 In addition, a meta-analysis of 31 long-term ß-blocker studies with follow-up lasting 1 to 4 years found marked benefits in terms of reducing mortality and morbidity in post-MI patients.5 The benefits of ß-blockers were maintained in the era in which fibrinolytics and aspirin were used. In fact, the substantial effect of ß-blockers in reducing mortality compared favorably with other therapies: The number of unselected patients needed to treat to avoid one death over 2 years was 24 for fibrinolytics and aspirin used for 4 weeks, 42 for ß-blockers, 94 for statins, and 153 for antiplatelet agents.5

The Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in LV Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) trial evaluated the effects of adding carvedilol (a nonselective ß-blocker with {alpha}-blocking capability) to standard therapy in patients with acute MI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <=0.40), with or without HF symptoms. In this study, mortality or nonfatal reinfarction (which was not the primary end point) was significantly reduced by carvedilol (Table 2).11 Almost all patients in CAPRICORN were given ACE inhibitors, >=85% were on aspirin, and 45% received reperfusion therapy.11


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Comparison of Major ß-Blocker Trials in the Chronic Post-MI Period: Clinical Outcomes

ß-Blockers in Post-MI Patients With Relative Contraindications
A review of >=200 000 patient records in the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project found that only 34% of patients received ß-blockers after MI.12 The percentage was lower among African Americans, the elderly, and patients with HF, COPD, low heart rate or blood pressure, or type 1 diabetes mellitus.12 When all risk factors were accounted for, however, there was notably less mortality in each of these subgroups when ß-blockers were administered.12 16

ß-Blocker Use in HF
Because of their initial transient negative inotropic effects, ß-blockers traditionally were considered contraindicated in HF. However, in a subset analysis in BHAT of patients who had HF before randomization, propranolol reduced total mortality and sudden death.13 In CAPRICORN, carvedilol reduced mortality and reinfarction in post-MI patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, with or without signs of HF (Table 2).

Present ACC/AHA guidelines advise that in patients with systolic HF, most of whom have coronary artery disease,14 an ACE inhibitor should be used first, and a ß-blocker such as carvedilol or metoprolol CR/XL should be started at low doses (see Figure 1) and gradually increased over {approx}12 weeks.15 There is now conclusive evidence that long-term ß-blocker use results in improved rates of mortality and morbidity in patients with HF.16–18,19



View larger version (44K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		AV indicates atrioventricular; BP, blood pressure; DM, diabetes mellitus; HR, heart rate; LV, left ventricular; PVD, peripheral vascular disease.

ß-Blockade in Patients With COPD
COPD of itself is not a contraindication unless there is significant reactive airway disease. The Cooperative Cardiovascular Project found that patients with COPD had a major reduction in mortality with ß-blockers.12,20 In fact, even patients who are prescribed ß-agonists may actually benefit from the addition of a ß-blocker.12 Nevertheless, ß2-blockade may cause bronchoconstriction and should be used with caution. In patients with mild reactive airway disease, short-acting ß1-selective agents such as metoprolol or atenolol at low dose may be safer because of limited interaction with the ß2-receptor.21 Their selectivity, however, may be lost at higher doses.

ß-Blockade in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Hyperlipidemia
Diabetes is an important risk factor for early and late mortality after MI. The use of ß-blockers in diabetes has been questioned because of their modulating effect on hypoglycemic symptoms and potential interference with insulin release. In patients with diabetes, it was found that those who were prescribed ß-blockers had a significantly lower 1-year mortality rate than those not receiving these agents, regardless of type and severity of diabetes.12,22–24

Some ß-blockers decrease HDL and increase triglycerides.25 In spite of this, BHAT data showed that propranolol improves survival after MI.26 Low-dose metoprolol CR/XL alone or in combination with a statin resulted in significant slowing of the progression of carotid artery’s intima-media thickness over a 3-year period.27

ß-Blockade in Elderly Patients
Fewer than 51% of elderly patients (older than 65) hospitalized with an acute MI and without any contraindications to ß-blockers received early ß-blocker therapy.28 However, those who did receive this therapy (mean age, 75.1 years) had a significantly lower rate of in-hospital mortality than those not receiving early ß-blockade.28 A subgroup analysis of all-cause mortality on patients <=70 years and >=70 years of age was performed in CAPRICORN. The point estimates favoring carvedilol use regardless of age are consistent with the findings of the overall study group (unpublished data, 2002). The Cardiovascular Cooperative Project also reported that mortality was 32% lower in patients >=80 years of age.12

ß-Blocker Use in African Americans
It has been suggested that African Americans with HF may not respond as well to ACE inhibitors and ß-blockers.29,30 However, a 40% decrease in the relative risk of death was reported for African-American patients receiving ß-blockers at hospital discharge.12 In BHAT, ß-blocker benefits for African-American patients were observed. In the US Carvedilol Heart Failure Trial Program, carvedilol mortality benefit was apparent and of similar magnitude in both African-American and non–African-American HF patients.31

ß-Blocker Use in Patients With Peripheral Vascular Disease
Although there is concern that ß-blockers could increase claudication in patients with peripheral vascular disease, clinical studies do not support this concept. Indeed, ß-blockers are well tolerated.32

ß-Blockers and Side Effects
All too often, ß-blockers are not used because of their perceived side effects, namely fatigue, decreased heart rate, hypotension, and reduced sexual activity. In the BHAT trial, reduced sexual activity was reported by 43.2% in the propranolol group and 42.0% in the placebo group; the difference was not statistically significant.8 Similarly, fatigue was present in 66.8% in the propranolol group compared with 62.1% in the placebo group.8 Propranolol had to be discontinued in only 0.7% because of bradycardia, in 1.2% because of hypotension, in 1.5% because of fatigue, in 0.4% because of depression, and in only 0.2% because of reduced sexual activity.8 It is clear from this study that even high doses of ß-blockers are well tolerated in post-MI patients.

ß-Blocker Use in Patients With Non–ST-Elevation MI
The role of ß-blockers in patients with non–ST-elevation MI has been questioned in the retrospective analysis of the BHAT trial.33 However, the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group7 and Gottlieb et al12 found that ß-blocker therapy was associated with an improvement in survival rate. Although not as strong for a non–ST-elevation MI, evidence shows that ß-blockers should be used in this group of patients, with the same ß-blockers and doses that are being used for patients with an ST-elevation MI. It should also be noted that patients with non–ST-elevation MI may also be at high risk, because they are older, have extensive coronary artery disease, and have a higher rate of residual ischemia or reinfarction.34

Which ß-Blocker?
ß-Blockers have important differences with regard to receptor selectivity, receptor affinity, lipophilicity, and intrinsic sympathomimetic agonism. It is not clear that these pharmacological distinctions translate into meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. However, the choice and dose of ß-blocker should be based on its proven effectiveness in large, randomized clinical trials (Figure).


*    Conclusion
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 *Conclusion
down arrowReferences
 
The level of evidence supporting the use of ß-blockers in the chronic post-MI period is very strong. On the basis of much of the evidence presented here, the American Medical Association and 5 other collaborating medical organizations recently issued a "Quality of Care Alert," which recommends that the benefits of ß-blockers in reducing mortality and reinfarction may actually outweigh their risks, even in patients with relative contraindications such as asthma, diabetes mellitus, COPD, severe peripheral vascular disease, PR interval >0.24 seconds, and moderate or severe left ventricular failure.35 Taken as a whole, this evidence leads to the conclusion that ß-blockers should be administered to all post-MI patients without a contraindication and should be continued indefinitely, as recommended in the recent 2001 AHA/ACC Scientific Statement.1


*    References
up arrowTop
 up arrowIntroduction
 up arrowConclusion
 *References
 

  1. Smith SC Jr, Blair SN, Bonow RO, et al. AHA/ACC Scientific Statement: AHA/ACC guidelines for preventing heart attack and death in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: 2001 update. A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology. Circulation. 2001; 104: 1577–1579.[Free Full Text]
  2. Krumholz HM, Radford MJ, Wang Y, et al. National use and effectiveness of beta-blockers for the treatment of elderly patients after acute myocardial infarction: National Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA. 1998; 280: 623–629.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Bradford WD, Chen J, Krumholz HM. Under-utilisation of beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction: pharmacoeconomic implications. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999; 15: 257–268.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  4. Snow PJ. Effect of propranolol in myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1965; 2: 551–553.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  5. Freemantle N, Cleland J, Young P, et al. Beta-blockade after myocardial infarction: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. BMJ. 1999; 318: 1730–1737.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction: II. Morbidity results. JAMA. 1983; 250: 2814–2819.[Abstract]
  7. Norwegian Multicenter Study Group. Timolol-induced reduction in mortality and reinfarction in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1981; 304: 801–807.[Abstract]
  8. Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group. A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infarction: I. Mortality results. JAMA. 1982; 247: 1707–1714.[Abstract]
  9. Vantrimpont P, Rouleau JL, Wun CC, et al. Additive beneficial effects of beta-blockers to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement (SAVE) Study. SAVE Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997; 29: 229–236.[Abstract]
  10. Spargias KS, Hall AS, Greenwood DC, et al. Beta-blocker treatment and other prognostic variables in patients with clinical evidence of heart failure after acute myocardial infarction: evidence from the AIRE study. Heart. 1999; 81: 25–32.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. The Capricorn Investigators. Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomised trial. Lancet. 2001; 357: 1385–1390.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  12. Gottlieb SS, McCarter RJ, Vogel RA. Effect of beta-blockade on mortality among high-risk and low-risk patients after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 489–497.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Chadda K, Goldstein S, Byington R, et al. Effect of propranolol after acute myocardial infarction in patients with congestive heart failure. Circulation. 1986; 73: 503–510.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Gheorghiade M, Bonow RO. Chronic heart failure in the United States: a manifestation of coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1998; 97: 282–289.[Free Full Text]
  15. Smith SC Jr, Blair SN, Bonow RO, et al. AHA/ACC Guidelines for Preventing Heart Attack and Death in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: 2001 update. A statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38: 1581–1583.[Free Full Text]
  16. Packer M, Coats AJS, Fowler MB, et al. Effect of carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1651–1658.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. The MERIT-HF Investigators. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999; 353: 2001–2007.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  18. The CIBIS-II Investigators. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999; 353: 9–13.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  19. Hunt SA, Baker DW, Chin MH, et al. ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the Adult: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure). Available at: http://www.acc.org/clinical/guidelines/failure/hf_index.htm. Accessed March 12, 2001.
  20. Chen J, Radford MJ, Wang Y, et al. Effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37: 1950–1956.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Tafreshi MJ, Weinacker AB. Beta-adrenergic-blocking agents in bronchospastic diseases: a therapeutic dilemma. Pharmacotherapy. 1999; 19: 974–978.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  22. Chen J, Marciniak TA, Radford MJ, et al. Beta-blocker therapy for secondary prevention of myocardial infarction in elderly diabetic patients: results from the National Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999; 34: 1388–1394.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Kjekshus J, Gilpin E, Cali G, et al. Diabetic patients and beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 1990; 11: 43–50.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Malmberg K, Ryden L, Hamsten A, et al. Mortality prediction in diabetic patients with myocardial infarction: experiences from the DIGAMI study. Cardiovasc Res. 1997; 34: 248–253.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Byington RP, Worthy J, Craven T, et al. Propranolol-induced lipid changes and their prognostic significance after a myocardial infarction: the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial experience. Am J Cardiol. 1990; 65: 1287–1291.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  26. Cruickshank JM. Beta-blockers, plasma lipids, and coronary heart disease. Circulation. 1990; 82 (suppl II): II-60–II-65.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  27. Hedblad B, Wikstrand J, Janzon L, et al. Low-dose metoprolol CR/XL and fluvastatin slow progression of carotid intima-media thickness: main results from the Beta-Blocker Cholesterol- Lowering Asymptomatic Plaque Study (BCAPS). Circulation. 2001; 103: 1721–1726.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Krumholz HM, Radford MJ, Wang Y, et al. Early beta-blocker therapy for acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. Ann Intern Med. 1999; 131: 648–654.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Exner DV, Dries DL, Domanski MJ, et al. Lesser response to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor therapy in black as compared with white patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1351–1357.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. The Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial Investigators. A trial of the beta-blocker bucindolol in patients with advanced chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1659–1667.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Yancy CW, Fowler MB, Colucci WS, et al. Race and the response to adrenergic blockade with carvedilol in patients with chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344: 1358–1365.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Heintzen MP, Strauer BE. Peripheral vascular effects of beta-blockers. Eur Heart J. 1994; 15: 2–7.[Free Full Text]
  33. Gheorghiade M, Schultz L, Tilley B, et al. Effects of propranolol in non-Q-wave acute myocardial infarction in the beta blocker heart attack trial. Am J Cardiol. 1990; 66: 129–133.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  34. Gibson RS, Beller GA, Gheorghiade M, et al. The prevalence and clinical significance of residual myocardial ischemia 2 weeks after uncomplicated non-Q wave infarction: a prospective natural history study. Circulation. 1986; 73: 1186–1198.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. American Medical Association. Beta-blocker prophylaxis after acute myocardial infarction. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3379.html. Accessed March 5, 2002.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Evid. Based Med.Home page
C. W Good and P. B Berger
Review: reduction in resting heart rate after taking {beta}-blockers or calcium-channel blockers reduce mortality and morbidity after MI
Evid. Based Med., August 1, 2008; 13(4): 112 - 112.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart J SupplHome page
Authors/Task Force Members, L. Ryden, E. Standl, M. Bartnik, G. V. d. Berghe, J. Betteridge, M.-J. de Boer, F. Cosentino, B. Jonsson, M. Laakso, et al.
Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases: full text: The Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)
Eur. Heart J. Suppl., June 1, 2007; 9(suppl_C): C3 - C74.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
H.-J. Priebe
Perioperative myocardial infarction--aetiology and prevention
Br. J. Anaesth., July 1, 2005; 95(1): 3 - 19.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
Task Force Members, J. Lopez-Sendo, K. Swedberg, J. McMurray, J. Tamargo, A. P. Maggioni, H. Dargie, M. Tendera, F. Waagstein, J. Kjekshus, et al.
Expert consensus document on {beta}-adrenergic receptor blockers: The Task Force on Beta-Blockers of the European Society of Cardiology
Eur. Heart J., August 1, 2004; 25(15): 1341 - 1362.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Evid. Based Med.Home page
M. B Stanbrook
Review: cardioselective {beta}-blockers did not reduce respiratory function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Evid. Based Med., November 1, 2002; 7(6): 181 - 181.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Free upon publication Free Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gheorghiade, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gheorghiade, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Acute myocardial infarction

Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search
Copyright © 2002 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited.