In Brief | Cardiovascular Disease

Assessing the efficacy of long-term beta-blocker treatment interruption versus continuation following myocardial infarction.


Time to read: 02:08 minutes
Time to listen: 04:39 minutes

 
Published on MedED: 14  October  2024
Originally Published: 30 August 2024
Sourced: NEJM
Type of article: In Brief
MedED Catalogue Reference: MCIB003

Category: Cardiovascular Disease
Cross Reference: Gerontology

Keywords: myocardial infarction, beta blockers, cardiovascular disease
 
Key Takeaway
Interruption of long-term beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction did not demonstrate noninferiority compared to continued treatment, with a higher incidence of primary outcomes in the interruption group. Additionally, quality of life was not improved by discontinuing beta-blockers, suggesting that ongoing treatment may be more beneficial.

Top

Originally published in NEJM,30 August 2024 This summary does not represent the original research, nor is it intended to replace the original research. Access the full Disclaimer Information
 


 
Beta-blockers have long been a cornerstone in the management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, the evidence supporting their use primarily stems from clinical studies conducted in the pre-reperfusion era, before the widespread adoption of anti-platelet drugs, statins, and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. These newer interventions have significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality in AMI patients.

In the current reperfusion era, the benefit of beta-blockers remains clear only for patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF ≤40%). For those with mildly reduced or preserved EF, the optimal duration and overall benefit of oral beta-blocker therapy remain questionable, largely due to the absence of randomized clinical trials addressing this specific population.1

 
This recent multicenter, open-label, randomized noninferiority trial sought to evaluate the effects of interrupting long-term beta-blocker treatment in patients with a history of uncomplicated myocardial infarction. 
 
The study enrolled 3,698 patients randomising them in a 1:1 ratio: 1,846 patients were assigned to interrupt their beta-blocker therapy, while 1,852 were assigned to continue treatment. The median time from the most recent myocardial infarction to randomization was 2.9 years.
 
Inclusion Criteria:
Participants were required to have a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40% and no history of cardiovascular events in the six months preceding their enrollment.

Endpoints:
The primary endpoint was a composite measure encompassing death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular reasons.

The main secondary endpoint assessed changes in quality of life, measured using the European Quality of Life – 5 Dimensions questionnaire.

The following findings were recorded:
 
1. Primary Outcome:
A primary outcome event occurred in 432 of 1,812 patients (23.8%) in the interruption group, compared to 384 of 1,821 patients (21.1%) in the continuation group.
This reflected a risk difference of 2.8 percentage points and a 16% higher hazard ratio (HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.33; P=0.44 for non-inferiority).

 
2. Quality of Life:
The study found no significant improvement in patient's quality of life following the interruption of beta-blocker treatment.
 
This trial demonstrates that for patients with a history of myocardial infarction and preserved left ventricular function, the interruption of long-term beta-blocker therapy was not non-inferior to the continuation of treatment. 
 
These findings suggest that ongoing beta-blocker therapy may play a crucial role in effectively managing cardiovascular risks in this patient population. However, further research is warranted to elucidate the optimal duration and specific patient subgroups that may benefit most from long-term beta-blocker therapy in the contemporary era of cardiac care.
 
 
Access the original research article

Back to top

Disclaimer
This article is compiled from several resources researched and compiled by the contributor. It is in no way presented as an original work.  Every effort has been made to attribute quotes and content correctly. Where possible all information has been independently verified. The Medical Education Network bears no responsibility for any inaccuracies which may occur from the use of third-party sources. If you have any queries regarding this article contact us 


Fact-checking Policy
The Medical Education Network makes every effort to review and fact-check the articles used as source material in our summaries and original material. We have strict guidelines in relation to the publications we use as our source data, favouring peer-reviewed research wherever possible. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained here is an accurate reflection of the original material. Should you find inaccuracies, out of date content or have any additional issues with our articles, please make use of the contact us form to notify us.

Rapid SSL

The Medical Education Network
Powered by eLecture, a VisualLive Solution