Search

β-blocker therapy has been positively associated with improved survival in patients undergoing oncologic colorectal resection. This study investigates if the type of β-blocker used affects 90-day postoperative mortality following colon cancer surgery. The study was designed as a nationwide retrospective cohort study including all adult (≥ 18 years old) patients with ongoing β-blocker therapy who underwent elective and emergency colon cancer surgery in Sweden between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017. Patients were divided into four cohorts: metoprolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, and other beta-blockers. The primary outcome of interest was 90-day postoperative mortality. A Poisson regression model with robust standard errors was used, while adjusting for all clinically relevant variables, to determine the association between different β-blockers and 90-day postoperative mortality. A total of 9254 patients were included in the study. There was no clinically significant difference in crude 90-day postoperative mortality rate [n (%)] when comparing the four beta-blocker cohorts metoprolol, atenolol, bisoprolol and other beta-blockers. [97 (1.8%) vs. 28 (2.0%) vs. 29 (1.7%) vs. 11 (1.2%), p = 0.670]. This remained unchanged when adjusting for relevant covariates in the Poisson regression model. Compared to metoprolol, there was no statistically significant decrease in the risk of 90-day postoperative mortality with atenolol [adj. IRR (95% CI): 1.45 (0.89-2.37), p = 0.132], bisoprolol [adj. IRR (95% CI): 1.45 (0.89-2.37), p = 0.132], or other beta-blockers [adj. IRR (95% CI): 0.92 (0.46-1.85), p = 0.825]. In patients undergoing colon cancer surgery, the risk of 90-day postoperative mortality does not differ between the investigated types of β-adrenergic blocking agents., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The protective role of preoperative beta-blocker in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the effects of beta-blocker on perioperative myocardial injury in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. We consecutively enrolled 112 patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. They were randomly allocated to receive bisoprolol or placebo given at least 2 days preoperatively and continued until 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome was incidence of perioperative myocardial injury defined by a rise of high-sensitive troponin-T (hs-TnT) more than 99th percentile of upper reference limit or a rise of hs-TnT more than 20% if baseline level is abnormal. Baseline characteristics were comparable between bisoprolol and placebo in randomized cohort Mean age was 62.5 ± 11.8 years and 76 (67.8%) of 112 patients were male. Among 112 patients, 49 (43.8%) underwent vascular surgery and 63 (56.2%) underwent thoracic surgery. The median duration of assigned treatment prior to surgery was 4 days (2-6 days). We did not demonstrate the significant difference in the incidence of perioperative myocardial injury [52.6% (30 of 57 patients) vs. 49.1% (27 of 55 patients), P = 0.706]. In addition, the incidence of intraoperative hypotension was higher in bisoprolol group than placebo group in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery [70.2% (40 of 57 patients) vs. 47.3% (26 of 55 patients), P = 0.017]. We demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in perioperative myocardial injury observed between patients receiving bisoprolol and placebo who had undergone non-cardiac surgery., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Beta-adrenergic blocking agents (abbreviated as beta-blockers) have been used for treating various cardiovascular diseases. However, the potential for asthma exacerbation is one of the major adverse effects of beta-blockers. This study aimed to compare the level of risk for an asthma attack in patients receiving various beta-blockers. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of either placebo-controlled or active-controlled design. The current network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted under a frequentist model. The primary outcome was the incidence of asthmatic attack. A total of 24 RCTs were included. Overall NMA revealed that only oral timolol [risk ratio (RR) = 3.35 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-10.85)] and infusion of propranolol [RR = 10.19 (95% CI 1.29-80.41)] were associated with significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than the placebo, whereas oral celiprolol [RR = 0.39 (95% CI 0.04-4.11)], oral celiprolol and propranolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02-11.65)], oral bisoprolol [RR = 0.46 (95% CI 0.02-11.65)], oral atenolol [RR = 0.51 (95% CI 0.20-1.28)], infusion of practolol [RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.03-25.14)], and infusion of sotalol [RR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.08-10.65)] were associated with relatively lower incidences of asthma attack than the placebo. In participants with a baseline asthma history, in addition to oral timolol and infusion of propranolol, oral labetalol, oxprenolol, propranolol, and metoprolol exhibited significantly higher incidences of asthma attack than did the placebo. In conclusion, oral timolol and infusion of propranolol were associated with a significantly higher risk of developing an asthma attack in patients, especially in those with a baseline asthma history, and should be avoided in patients who present a risk of asthma.Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020190540.

Alveolar β 2 -receptor blockade worsens lung diffusion in heart failure (HF). This effect could be mitigated by stimulating alveolar β 2 -receptors. We investigated the safety and the effects of indacaterol on lung diffusion, lung mechanics, sleep respiratory behavior, cardiac rhythm, welfare, and exercise performance in HF patients treated with a selective (bisoprolol) or a non-selective (carvedilol) β-blocker. Study procedures were performed before and after indacaterol and placebo treatments according to a cross-over, randomized, double-blind protocol in forty-four patients (27 on bisoprolol and 17 on carvedilol). No differences between indacaterol and placebo were observed in the whole population except for a significantly higher VE/VCO 2 slope and lower maximal P ET CO 2 during exercise with indacaterol, entirely due to the difference in the bisoprolol group (VE/VCO 2 31.8 ± 5.9 vs. 28.5 ± 5.6, p < 0.0001 and maximal P ET CO 2 36.7 ± 5.5 vs. 37.7 ± 5.8 mmHg, p < 0.02 with indacaterol and placebo, respectively). In carvedilol, indacaterol was associated with a higher peak heart rate (119 ± 34 vs. 113 ± 30 bpm, with indacaterol and placebo) and a lower prevalence of hypopnea during sleep (3.8 [0.0;6.3] vs. 5.8 [2.9;10.5] events/hour, with indacaterol and placebo). Inhaled indacaterol is well tolerated in HF patients, it does not influence lung diffusion, and, in bisoprolol, it increases ventilation response to exercise.

Subjects over the age 60 with sustained sitting diastolic pressures of 95-115 mm Hg were randomised to a regime based on bisoprolol (n = 368) or nifedipine retard (n = 379) for 24 weeks. The goal diastolic pressure was < or =90 mm Hg and to achieve this, double-blind medication could be doubled (5/10 mg bisoprolol, 40/80 mg nifedipine retard) or hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (unblinded) could be added to the higher dose. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 309 subjects in both the bisoprolol and nifedipine retard treated group provided at least a baseline and a second quality of life assessment (82%). An excess of symptoms was observed in the nifedipine group for oedema of the legs, nocturia, constipation, racing heart and heart thumping. Fewer patients reported wheeze in the nifedipine group. For quality of life, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups after 8 weeks. However, when analysing the results of the last available assessment (usually at 24 weeks) there were significant (P < 0.05) improvements in tension/anxiety, anger/ hostility, vigour/activity, and confusion/bewilderment, assessed by the Profile of Mood States (POMS) in patients receiving bisoprolol in comparison to those receiving nifedipine retard. The Sickness Impact Profile and objective tests of cognitive function did not differ statistically between the two groups. Quality of life was maintained at a good level on both treatments with advantages for bisoprolol in certain areas. Journal of Human Hypertension (2000) 14, 205-212.

Objectives: To compare quality of life with the selective beta1-blocker bisoprolol and the thiazide diuretic bendrofluazide in patients with mild to moderate hypertension., Design and Setting: Multi centric, randomised, double-blind, two-way crossover study carried out at six general practice centres., Subjects: Eighty-one patients with newly diagnosed or previously treated hypertension, who had a mean diastolic blood pressure (BP) of 95-120 mm Hg after receiving placebo for 4-6 weeks., Interventions: In random order, patients received bisoprolol (5 mg once daily) or bendrofluazide (2. 5 mg once daily) for 8 weeks., Main Outcome Measures: Quality of life and antihypertensive effect., Results: Decrease in systolic/diastolic BP did not differ between bisoprolol (10 +/- 2/13 +/- 1 mm Hg) and bendrofluazide (9 +/- 2/11 +/- 1 mm Hg). Between bisoprolol and bendrofluazide neither in the intention-to-treat nor in the efficacy analysis any difference was found in quality of life variables, such as Health Status Index, somatic symptoms, anxiety, depression, total psychiatric morbidity, cognitive symptoms and hostility score. Compared to baseline the Health Status Index improved (P < 0.05) during bisoprolol. None of the other investigated quality of life variables changed compared to baseline. No patients dropped out during bisoprolol or bendrofluazide treatment. Although, the total number of reported adverse events appeared lower during bendrofluazide than during bisoprolol treatment, it is unclear whether drug related adverse events also differ between the two drugs., Conclusions: At equipotent antihypertensive dosages, the effect of an 8-week treatment on quality of life does not differ between the selective beta1-blocker bisoprolol and the thiazide diuretic bendrofluazide.