4.7 Article

Influence of Different Types of β-Blockers on Mortality in Patients on Hemodialysis

Journal

BIOMEDICINES
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11102838

Keywords

hemodialysis; beta-blocker; mortality

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to evaluate the effect of different types of beta-blockers on patient survival in hemodialysis. The results showed no significant difference in patient survival based on the use or types of beta-blockers.
Previous results regarding the association between types of beta-blockers and outcomes in patients on hemodialysis (HD) were inconsistent. Our study aimed to evaluate patient survival according to the type of beta-blockers administered using a large sample of patients with maintenance HD. Our study included patients on maintenance HD patients from a national HD quality assessment program (n = 54,132). We divided included patients into four groups based on their use and type; Group 1 included patients without a prescription of beta-blockers, Group 2 included patients with a prescription of dialyzable and cardioselective beta-blockers, Group 3 included patients with a prescription of non-dialyzable and non-cardioselective beta-blockers, and Group 4 included patients with prescription of non-dialyzable and cardioselective beta-blockers. The number of patients in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 34,514, 2789, 15,808, and 1021, respectively. The 5-year survival rates in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 69.3%, 66.0%, 68.8%, and 69.2%, respectively. Univariate Cox regression analyses showed the hazard ratios to be 1.10 (95% CI, 1.04-1.17) in Group 2 and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02-1.09) in Group 3 compared to Group 1. However, multivariate Cox regression analyses did not show statistical significance among the four groups. Our study showed that there was no significant difference in patient survival based on the use or types of beta-blockers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available