Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/24849
Title: Role of beta blockers following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome.
Austin Authors: Peck, Kah Yong;Andrianopoulos, Nick;Dinh, Diem;Roberts, Louise;Duffy, Stephen J;Sebastian, Martin;Clark, David J ;Brennan, Angela;Oqueli, Ernesto;Ajani, Andrew E;Reid, Christopher M;Freeman, Melanie;Teh, Andrew W 
Affiliation: Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Cardiology, Eastern Health, Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Cardiology
Department of Cardiology, Barwon Health, University Hospital, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Alfred Health, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of Cardiology, Eastern Health, Box Hill Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
School of Public Health, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Department of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
School of Medicine, Deakin University, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
Department of Cardiology, Ballarat Health Services, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia
Issue Date: 2021
Date: 2020-09-04
Publication information: Heart 2021; 107(9): 728-733
Abstract: There is a paucity of evidence supporting routine beta blocker (BB) use in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to evaluate BB use post PCI and its association with mortality. Furthermore, the study aimed to evaluate the association between BB and mortality in the subgroups of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%, LVEF 35%-50% and LVEF >50%. Using a large PCI registry, data from patients with ACS between January 2005 and June 2017 who were alive at 30 days were analysed. Those patients taking BB at 30 days were compared with those who were not taking BB. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The mean follow-up was 5.3±3.5 years. Of the 17 562 patients, 83.3% were on BB. Mortality was lower in the BB group (13.1% vs 19.5%, p=0.0001). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model showed that BB use was associated with lower overall mortality (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, p=0.014). In the subgroup analysis, BB use was associated with reduced mortality in LVEF <35% (adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, p=0.013), LVEF 35%-50% (adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95, p=0.01), but not LVEF >50% (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21, p=0.74). BB use remains high and is associated with reduced mortality. This reduction in mortality is primarily seen in those with reduced ejection fraction, but not in those with preserved ejection fraction.
URI: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/24849
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2020-316605
ORCID: 0000-0002-9160-6897
0000-0002-4518-5948
Journal: Heart
PubMed URL: 32887736
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: acute myocardial infarction
percutaneous coronary intervention
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

40
checked on Dec 19, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.