4.4 Article

Population-Based Analysis of Class Effect of β Blockers in Heart Failure

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 107, 期 8, 页码 1196-1202

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.12.017

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The long-term use of beta blockers has been shown to improve the outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF). However, it is still disputed whether this is a class effect, and, specifically, whether carvedilol or bisoprolol are superior to metoprolol. The present study was a comparative effectiveness study of beta blockers for patients with HF in a population-based setting. We conducted an observational cohort study using the Quebec administrative databases to identify patients with HF who were prescribed a beta blocker after the diagnosis of HF. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the patients by the type of beta blocker prescribed at discharge. The unadjusted mortality for users of each beta blocker was calculated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using the log-rank test. To account for differences in follow-up and to control for differences among patient characteristics, a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the mortality. Of the 26,787 patients with HF, with a median follow-up of 1.8 years per patient, the crude incidence of death was 47% with metoprolol, 40% with atenolol, 41% with carvedilol, 36% with bisoprolol, and 43% with acebutolol. After controlling for several different covariates, we found that carvedilol (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97 to 1.12, p = 0.22) and bisoprolol (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.01, p = 0.16) were not superior to metoprolol in improving survival. Atenolol (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87, p <0.0001) and acebutolol (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95, p = 0.004) were superior to metoprolol. In conclusion, we did not find evidence of a class effect for 13 blockers in patients with HF. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2011;107:1196-1202)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据