Background
In patients with heart failure, β-adrenergic blocking agents reduce overall and cardiovascular mortality. This meta-analysis aimed at clarifying their effect on sudden death, the magnitude of their benefit according to the cause of heart failure, and whether there is any difference between vasodilating and nonvasodilating agents.
Methods
Randomized, clinical trials were included if they evaluated a β-adrenergic blocking agent without intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, included a control group receiving placebo or standard treatment, evaluated mortality on an intention-to-treat basis, and lasted at least 8 weeks.
Results
Twenty-one trials with 5849 patients (3130 receiving β-blockers) were included. Median length of treatment was 6 months. Most patients had mild or moderate heart failure and were treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, diuretics, and digitalis. The β-blockers significantly reduced overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and mortality due to pump failure and sudden death by 34% to 39%. The decrease in overall mortality in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) (30%) was no different from that among patients with non-IHD (26%) (P=.08). The reduction in overall mortality was greater with vasodilating than with nonvasodilating agents (45% vs 27%; P=.007), particularly in patients without IHD (62%), compared with those with IHD (22%; P=.03).
Conclusions
In patients with heart failure, β-blockers reduce total and cardiovascular mortality at the expense of a decrease in mortality due to pump failure and sudden death. The magnitude of the benefit is similar in patients with IHD and in those with non-IHD. Vasodilating β-blockers have a greater effect on overall mortality than nonvasodilating agents, particularly in patients with non-IHD.
DESPITE MAJOR advances in knowledge about heart failure, it remains a serious public health problem, with a growing prevalence of 0.2% to 4% in the general population and about 10% in patients older than 80 years.1 Case-fatality rate is 10% to 20% within 1 year of diagnosis and 50% or more within 5 years.1,2 Although death rates due to other cardiovascular diseases are falling, advanced heart failure progresses to rapid deterioration and is a cause of rising mortality rates.3-6 This has stimulated research into a more intensive treatment of less advanced stages of the disease and treatments based on new pathophysiological targets.
In patients with heart failure, the renin-angiotensin and sympathetic nervous systems are activated and contribute to progressive deterioration of the patient's condition.7,8 Long-term sympathetic activation has detrimental effects on the myocardium, through direct myocardial toxic effects and arrhythmogenesis caused by excess of catecholamines, and through indirect stimulation of the renin-angiotensin system.9-11 The results of several clinical trials suggest that β-adrenergic blocking agents improve symptoms, left ventricular function, and the rate of hospital admission.12-21 For carvedilol, a beneficial effect on mortality has also been reported.22 Three meta-analyses23-25 have indicated that β-blockers reduce overall and cardiovascular mortality. However, it is not known whether they reduce sudden death, whether their efficacy is influenced by the cause of heart failure, or whether there is any difference in the effect of vasodilating and nonvasodilating agents. Our study addressed these questions, including additional information from the recently published Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II) trial.26
Clinical trials were identified through a computerized bibliographic search of the MEDLINE (from January 1, 1966, to January 31, 1998) and EMBASE (from January 1, 1974, to May 30, 1997) databases and by browsing the bibliography from review articles on heart failure. A letter, asking about any unpublished or unknown trial on β-blockers in heart failure, was also sent to the first author of identified clinical trials, to experts in heart failure, and to the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing β-blocking agents. Furthermore, since January 1998, we have been following the progress and possible termination of a number of ongoing clinical trials.
Clinical trials were included if they (1) were randomized and tested a β-adrenergic blocking agent devoid of intrinsic sympathomimetic activity in patients with heart failure; (2) had a control group treated with placebo or standard treatment; (3) had a parallel or crossover design (from the latter, only the results of the first part of the study before the crossover were included); (4) evaluated mortality on an intention-to-treat basis; and (5) had a minimum duration of 8 weeks. Trials with and without run-in phase were included.
Three investigators (A.A., J.M.A., X.V.) independently considered the inclusion of each trial without knowledge of the title, authors, and publishing journal. Differences were resolved by consensus. The information on each trial included in the meta-analysis usually was obtained from the corresponding publication. For each trial, the following information was independently collected by two of us (S.B., A.A.), using a standard form: sex, age, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, ejection fraction, standard treatments, duration of the study, β-adrenergic agent tested, number of withdrawals and deaths during the run-in phase, and mortality during the double-blind phase of each trial. When some of these items were missing in the article, the first investigator of the study was asked for them. When information on a particular variable ultimately was not obtained, the trial was excluded from the analysis of that particular variable.
Heterogeneity of treatment effects between studies was tested by using a χ2 test for heterogeneity.27 Relative risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects methods28 with the Rev-man program developed by the Cochrane Collaboration.28 The random effects model was chosen because, in absence of heterogeneity, the results are the same as those obtained with the fixed effects model, and they can be more confidently generalized, as they are also more conservative. Comparisons between relative risk estimates were performed using the method described by Schlesselman.29
Clinical trials included in the meta-analysis
Thirty-nine studies12-22,26,30-56 were evaluated, but only 2112-21,26,30-39 met the preestablished criteria and were included in the study (Table 1). Four studies were excluded because they lasted less than 8 weeks40-43; 6 studies because they did not include a control group receiving placebo or standard treatment44-49; 1 study because it was a subanalysis of patients with heart failure in the β-Blocker Heart Attack Trial50; 1 study because labetalol hydrochloride, the agent used, has some intrinsic sympathomimetic activity51; 1 study because the assignment procedure was suboptimal52; 1 study because it only described the design of a study53; 1 study because it did not report on mortality54; and 2 studies because of discrepancies in the numerical data.55,56 Finally, 1 was the summary report22 of 4 randomized trials with carvedilol,30,31,33,38 and its results were used only when data were not available from the individual trials.
Baseline characteristics of patients
A total of 5849 patients were studied (75% male; 3130 randomized to β-blocking agents and 2719 to the control group). The median duration of treatment was 6 months (range, 3-32 months). In 8 trials, the drug under study was carvedilol17,18,21,30-33,38; in 7 studies, metoprolol (metoprolol tartrate in three studies15,16,19; nonspecified salt in the others)12,14-16,19,34,36; in 3 studies, bucindolol hydrochloride13,35,37; in 2 studies, bisoprolol fumarate20,26; and in 1 study, propranolol hydrochloride39(Table 1). Eleven trials (1839 patients, of whom 1658 were included in trials with carvedilol) tested a β-blocker with vasodilating properties, and 10 (4010 patients) tested a nonvasodilating agent (3288 patients in trials with bisoprolol).
Heart failure due to ischemic heart disease (IHD) resulted in 3 trials,16,21,39 to non-IHD (idiopathic) in 8,12,14,15,18,19,34,36,37 and to mixed in 913,17,20,26,30,32,33,35,38; cause was not stated in 1 study.31 In total, heart failure was judged to be ischemic in 2841 patients (48.6%) and nonischemic in 2903 (49.6%). Patients with NYHA class II or III disease constituted 88.7%. In trials that included information on concomitant treatment, 70% to 100% of patients received an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (15 trials); 75% to 100%, a diuretic (14 trials); and 34% to 100%, digitalis (16 trials).
Total and cardiovascular mortality
Seven hundred eighty-three patients died, 333 (10.6%) of 3130 treated with β-blockers, and 450 (16.6%) of 2719 in the control group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.80) (Table 2). Thus, 1 death can be prevented by treating 17 patients for 6 months. In 14 trials, a trend toward reduced mortality was seen, but only in 3 was this statistically significant (Figure 1). Including deaths during the run-in phase of trials (n=15) in the analysis did not materially change the estimate of mortality reduction (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.80).
Information on cardiovascular mortality was obtained from 18 studies.12-21,26,30,32,34-36,38,39 There were 262 (9.0%) of 2913 cardiovascular deaths among patients treated with β-blockers, compared with 347 (13.7%) of 2530 in the control group (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.86). This corresponds to 1 cardiac death prevented for every 21 patients treated. Reduced cardiovascular mortality was the result of a decrease in the number of deaths due to heart failure (RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.47-0.92]) and sudden death (RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.89]). There were few deaths due to myocardial infarction (12 vs 14; RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.38-1.72]) and other cardiovascular causes (41 vs 45; RR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.48-1.57]).
The inclusion of the CIBIS-II trial did not change the estimates of overall, cardiovascular, or heart failure mortality (Table 2), but it did increase the estimate of the benefit on sudden death.
VASODILATING VS NONVASODILATING β-ADRENERGIC BLOCKING AGENTS
Both groups of drugs reduced overall mortality, and this effect was greater with vasodilating agents (RR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.38-0.78] vs RR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.64-0.83]; P=.007) (Table 3 and Table 4). The point estimate of the reduction in cardiovascular mortality was also greater with vasodilating agents (RR, 0.50 [95% CI, 0.22-1.17]) than with nonvasodilating agents (RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.64-0.86]), but the CIs were wide, and the difference was not statistically significant (P=.14). A similar nonsignificant trend was seen when the effect of vasodilating (RR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.08-1.35]) and nonvasodilating agents (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.51-1.01]) (P=.24) on mortality due to pump failure was considered. Both groups of drugs similarly reduced mortality due to sudden death (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.35-1.12] vs RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.53-1.10]).
Before the publication of the CIBIS-II trial, a trend toward a greater protective effect of vasodilating agents on sudden death was seen (Table 5), but this disappeared when the CIBIS-II was included.
Information on the causes of heart failure was available from 15 trials.12,14-16,18-21,26,32,34-37,39 Reduction in overall mortality with β-blockers was slightly greater in patients with IHD (RR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.60-0.81]) (Table 6) than in those with non-IHD (RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.60-0.91]) (Table 7), but this difference was not statistically significant (P=.08). In patients with IHD, overall mortality was similarly reduced by vasodilating (RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.35-1.06]) and nonvasodilating agents (RR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.60-0.83]) (Table 5). In patients with non-IHD, the decrease in overall mortality was greater with vasodilating (RR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.18-0.83]) than with nonvasodilating β-blockers (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]; P=.03) (Table 5).
Four trials gave information on all-cause hospital admissions,21,26,34,36 and 9 gave information on hospitalization for heart failure.15,18,20,21,26,30,34,36,38 The β-blockers reduced the rate of all-cause hospital admissions by 15% (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92]), and the rate of hospital admissions for heart failure by 33% (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.58-0.77]). Vasodilating (RR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.94]) and nonvasodilating agents (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.57-0.78]) similarly reduced hospitalization for heart failure (Table 5).
Previously published meta-analyses, which had each included from 3023 to 3141 patients, had already suggested a protective effect of β-blocking agents on mortality due to heart failure.23-25 Our study, which includes 5849 patients, confirms previous estimates23-25 of the benefit of β-adrenergic blocking agents on total, cardiovascular, and pump failure mortality in patients with heart failure. In addition, our results indicate that reduced cardiovascular mortality was the result of reduced mortality due to heart failure and sudden death, that the benefits in terms of mortality were of the same order in patients with IHD and non-IHD, and that vasodilating agents are more effective than nonvasodilating agents.
The results of several clinical trials had suggested that patients with heart failure resulting from IHD did not benefit from β-blockers. In contrast, in 1 meta-analysis,24 overall mortality was similarly reduced in patients with IHD and non-IHD heart failure. Our results show that the magnitude of the benefit of β-blockers in patients with IHD does not differ from that in patients with non-IHD.
Although β-adrenergic blocking agents are a relatively heterogeneous group of drugs, pharmacological differences rarely translate into therapeutic differences. However, in patients with heart failure, the vasodilating effect of certain β-blockers would compensate for the initial negative inotropic effect,57,58 and it has been suggested that this, rather than β-adrenergic blockade, would account for their beneficial effect in heart failure.59,60 In our analysis, vasodilating and nonvasodilating β-blockers reduced overall mortality, but this effect was greater with vasodilating agents, and mainly in patients with non-IHD cardiomyopathy. Our results suggest that the effect of vasodilating β-blockers could be greater on cardiovascular mortality and on mortality due to progressive pump failure. On the other hand, although a relative advantage of vasodilating β-blockers on sudden death had been suggested,24 adding the results of the CIBIS-II trial suggests that the latter do not significantly differ from nonvasodilating β-blockers in this respect.
A previously published meta-analysis25 had suggested a greater effect of nonselective agents on overall mortality compared with the selective agents. These results are in accord with ours, because, of 1600 patients treated with nonselective β-blocking agents and included in that meta-analysis, 1564 had received carvedilol or bucindolol, which are nonselective and vasodilating. The results of a recently early stopped trial with metoprolol, where a 34% reduction in mortality was seen,61 are also in accord with our results regarding selective nonvasodilating β-blockers.
We suggest that in patients with non-IHD, vasodilating β-blockers are more effective, and that the benefits of vasodilating and nonvasodilating β-blockers may be the result of different mechanisms. Although the exact mechanisms by which these drugs benefit patients with heart failure are unknown, it seems that the vasodilator component would be more important in reducing mortality due to heart failure, whereas the β-blocker component (or the antiarrhythmic effect) would mainly contribute to reducing sudden death.
In conclusion, β-blockers reduce total and cardiovascular mortality, as a result of a decrease in pump failure mortality and sudden death. Our results also show that the effect of β-blockers in patients with IHD is at least equal to that in patients with non-IHD. Compared with nonvasodilating agents, vasodilating β-blockers have a greater effect on overall mortality, particularly in patients with non-IHD. This may be attributable to a greater effect of vasodilating β-blockers on cardiac and pump failure mortality, rather than on sudden death.
Accepted for publication July 1, 1999.
This study was supported by grant 042996 from the Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment, Barcelona, Spain.
We deeply acknowledge additional information on the trials provided by Wilbert S. Aronow, MD; Eric J. Eichhorn, MD; John G. F. Cleland, MD; Jay N. Cohn, MD; Henry J. Dargie, MD; Leif Erhardt, MD; Marc A. Pfeffer, MD; Willem J. Remme, MD; and Karl Swedberg, MD.
Reprints: Joan-Ramon Laporte, MD, Fundació Institut Català de Farmacologia, Hospitals Vall d'Hebron, 08035, Barcelona, Spain (e-mail: jrl@icf.uab.es).
2.McKee
PACastelli
WPMcNamara
PMKannel
WB The natural history of congestive heart failure: the Framingham Study.
N Engl J Med. 1971;2851441- 1445
Google ScholarCrossref 4.The CONSENSUS Trial Study Group, Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure: results of the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS).
N Engl J Med. 1987;3161429- 1435
Google ScholarCrossref 5.The SOLVD Investigators, Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and congestive heart failure.
N Engl J Med. 1991;325293- 302
Google ScholarCrossref 6.The Digitalis Investigation Group, The effect of digoxin on mortality and morbidity in patients with heart failure.
N Engl J Med. 1997;336525- 533
Google ScholarCrossref 7.Thomas
JAMarks
BH Plasma norepinephrine in congestive heart failure.
Am J Cardiol. 1978;41233- 243
Google ScholarCrossref 8.Cohn
JNLevine
TBOlivari
MT
et al. Plasma norepinephrine as a guide to prognosis in patients with chronic congestive heart failure.
N Engl J Med. 1984;311819- 823
Google ScholarCrossref 9.Yates
JCBeamish
REDhalla
NS Ventricular dysfunction and necrosis produced by adrenochrome metabolite of epinephrine: relation to pathogenesis of catecholamine cardiomyopathy.
Am Heart J. 1981;102210- 221
Google ScholarCrossref 10.Mann
DLKent
RLParsons
BCooper
IV Adrenergic effects on the biology of the adult mammalian cardiocyte.
Circulation. 1992;85790- 804
Google ScholarCrossref 12.Anderson
JLLutz
JRGilbert
EM
et al. A randomized trial of low-dose β-blockade therapy for idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Am J Cardiol. 1985;55471- 475
Google ScholarCrossref 13.Bristow
MRO'Connell
JBGilbert
EM
et al. Bucindolol Investigators, Dose-response of chronic β-blocker treatment in heart failure from either idiopathic dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Circulation. 1994;891632- 1642
Google ScholarCrossref 14.Eichhorn
EJHeesch
CMBarnett
JH
et al. Effect of metoprolol on myocardial function and energetics in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;241310- 1320
Google ScholarCrossref 15.Engelmeier
RSO'Connell
JBWalsh
RRad
NScanlon
PJGunnar
RM Improvement in symptoms and exercise tolerance by metoprolol in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
Circulation. 1985;72536- 546
Google ScholarCrossref 16.Fisher
MLGottlieb
SSPlotnik
GD
et al. Beneficial effects of metoprolol in heart failure associated with coronary artery disease: a randomized trial.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23943- 950
Google ScholarCrossref 17.Krum
HSackner-Bernstein
JDGoldsmith
RLKukin
MLSchwartz
BPenn
J Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the long-term efficacy of carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure.
Circulation. 1995;921499- 1506
Google ScholarCrossref 18.Metra
MNardi
MRaccagni
DGiubbini
RDei
Cas L Effects of short- and long-term carvedilol administration on rest and exercise hemodynamic variables, exercise capacity and clinical conditions in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;241678- 1687
Google ScholarCrossref 19.Waagstein
FBristow
MRSwedberg
K
et al. Metoprolol in Dilated Cardiomyopathy (MDC) Trial Study Group, Beneficial effects of metoprolol in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Lancet. 1993;3421441- 1446
Google ScholarCrossref 20.CIBIS Investigators and Committees, A randomized trial of β-blockade in heart failure: the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study (CIBIS).
Circulation. 1994;901765- 1773
Google ScholarCrossref 21.Australia/New Zealand Heart Failure Research Collaborative Group, Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of carvedilol in patients with congestive heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease.
Lancet. 1997;349375- 380
Google ScholarCrossref 22.Packer
MBristow
MRCohn
JN
et al. US Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group, The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure.
N Engl J Med. 1996;3341349- 1355
Google ScholarCrossref 23.Doughty
RNRodgers
ASharpe
NMacMahon
S Effects of beta-blocker therapy on mortality in patients with heart failure: a systematic overview of randomized controlled trials.
Eur Heart J. 1997;18560- 565
Google ScholarCrossref 24.Heidenreich
PALee
TTMassie
BM Effect of beta-blockade on mortality in patients with heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;3027- 34
Google ScholarCrossref 25.Lechat
PPacker
MChalon
SCucherat
MArab
TBoissel
JP Clinical effects of β-adrenergic blockade in chronic heart failure.
Circulation. 1998;981184- 1191
Google ScholarCrossref 26.CIBIS-II Investigators and Committees, The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial.
Lancet. 1999;3539- 13
Google ScholarCrossref 27.Breslow
NLDay
NE Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Lyon, France Inernational Agency for Research on Cancer1980;
28.Petitii
DB Meta-analysis: Decision Analysis and Cost-effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine. New York, NY Oxford University Press1994;
29.Schlesselman
J Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis. New York, NY Oxford University Press1982;
30.Bristow
MRGilbert
EMAbraham
WT
et al. MOCHA Investigators, Carvedilol produces dose-related improvements in left ventricular function and survival in subjects with chronic heart failure.
Circulation. 1996;942807- 2816
Google ScholarCrossref 31.Cohn
JNFowler
MBBristow
MA
et al. Effect of carvedilol in severe chronic heart failure [abstract].
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1996;27(suppl A)169A
Google ScholarCrossref 32.Olsen
SLGilbert
EMRenlund
DGTaylor
DOYanowitz
FDBristow
MR Carvedilol improves left ventricular function and symptoms in chronic heart failure: a double blind randomized study.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;251225- 1231
Google ScholarCrossref 33.Packer
MColucci
WSSackner-Bernstein
JD
et al. PRECISE Study Group, Double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effects of carvedilol in patients with moderate to severe heart failure: the PRECISE trial.
Circulation. 1996;942793- 2799
Google ScholarCrossref 34.Paolisso
GGambardella
AMarrazzo
G
et al. Metabolic and cardiovascular benefits deriving from β-adrenergic blockade in chronic congestive heart failure.
Am Heart J. 1992;123103- 110
Google ScholarCrossref 35.Pollock
SGLystash
JTedesco
CCraddock
GSmucker
ML Usefulness of bucindolol in congestive heart failure.
Am J Cardiol. 1990;66603- 607
Google ScholarCrossref 36.Sano
HKawabata
NYonezawa
KSakuma
IHirayama
HYasuda
H Metoprolol was more effective than captopril for dilated cardiomyopathy in Japanese patients [abstract].
Circulation. 1989;80(suppl 2)118
Google Scholar 37.Gilbert
EMAnderson
JLDeitchman
D
et al. Long-term β-blocker vasodilator therapy improves cardiac function in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy: a double-blind, randomized study of bucindolol versus placebo.
Am J Med. 1990;88223- 229
Google ScholarCrossref 38.Colucci
WPacker
MBristow
MR
et al. US Carvedilol Heart Failure Study Group, Carvedilol inhibits clinical progression in patients with mild symptoms of heart failure.
Circulation 1996;942800- 2806
Google ScholarCrossref 39.Aronow
WSAhn
CKronzon
AI Effect of propranolol versus no propranolol on total mortality plus nonfatal myocardial infarction in older patients with prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction >40% treated with diuretics plus angiotensin-converting–enzyme inhibitors.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;80207- 209
Google ScholarCrossref 40.Hall
JAFerro
ADickerson
JECBrown
MJ β-Adrenoceptor subtype cross regulation in the human heart.
Br Heart J. 1993;69332- 337
Google ScholarCrossref 41.Ikram
HFitzpatrick
D Double blind trial of chronic oral β-blockade in congestive cardiomyopathy.
Lancet. 1981;2490- 493
Google ScholarCrossref 42.Boutelant
SLechat
PKomajda
M
et al. Evaluation non invasive des effets cardiovasculaires du nebivolol chez l'insuffisant cardiaque.
Arch Mal Coeur. 1992;85863- 870
Google Scholar 43.Currie
PJKelly
MJMcKenzie
A
et al. Oral beta-adrenergic blockade with metoprolol in chronic severe dilated cardiomyopathy.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1984;3203- 209
Google ScholarCrossref 44.Freudenberger
RSMannino
MMKalman
J
et al. Does amlodipine provide benefit beyond beta blockade in heart failure? [abstract]
Circulation. 1995;92(suppl 1)394
Google Scholar 45.Persson
HRythe'n-Alder
EMelcher
AErhardt
L Effects of β-receptor antagonists in patients with clinical evidence of heart failure after myocardial infarction: double blind comparison of metoprolol and xamoterol.
Br Heart J. 1995;74140- 148
Google ScholarCrossref 46.Simarro
ERodríguez
MALastra
JA
et al. Efecto del gallopamil y del propranolol en pacientes con cardiopatía isquémica y depresión moderada de la función ventricular.
Rev Esp Cardiol. 1995;48741- 745
Google Scholar 47.Sanderson
JEChan
WWMHung
YT
et al. Effect of low dose beta blockers on atrial and ventricular (B type) natriuretic factor in heart failure: a double blind, randomised comparison of metoprolol and a third generation vasodilating beta blocker.
Br Heart J. 1995;74502- 507
Google ScholarCrossref 48.Yamada
SOhkura
TUchida
S
et al. A sustained increase in beta-adrenoceptors during long-term therapy with metoprolol and bisoprolol in patients with heart failure from idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Life Sci. 1996;581737- 1744
Google ScholarCrossref 49.Regitz
VLeuchs
BWellnhofer
EKrülls-Münch
JFleck
E Improvement in heart failure with long term ACE inhibitors and β-blockers therapy is comparable [abstract].
Circulation. 1992;86(suppl 1)119
Google Scholar 50.Chadda
KGoldstein
SByington
RCurb
JD Effect of propranolol after acute myocardial infarction in patients with congestive heart failure.
Circulation. 1986;73503- 510
Google ScholarCrossref 51.Leung
WHLau
CPWong
CKCheng
CHTai
YTLim
SP A double-blind crossover trial of labetalol in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy [abstract].
Circulation. 1989;80(suppl II)118
Google Scholar 52.Yoshikawa
THanda
SAkaishi
MMitamura
HOgawa
S Beta1-selectivity is not essential to achieve therapeutic efficacy with beta-blockade therapy for idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Cardiology. 1995;86217- 223
Google ScholarCrossref 53.The BEST Steering Committee, Design of the Beta-Blocker Evaluation Survival Trial (BEST).
Am J Cardiol. 1995;751220- 1223
Google ScholarCrossref 54.Sachdev
VMoore
CKDas
SKStarling
MR Effects of beta-blocking therapy on left ventricular systolic function in heart failure [abstract].
Circulation. 1992;86(suppl I)119
Google Scholar 55.Wisenbaugh
TKatz
IDavis
J
et al. Long term (3 month) effects of a new beta-blocker (nevibolol) on cardiac performance in dilated cardiomyopathy.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;211094- 1100
Google ScholarCrossref 56.Sigmund
MJakob
HBecker
H
et al. Effect of metoprolol on myocardial β-adrenoceptors and G1β-proteins in patients with congestive heart failure.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;51127- 132
Google ScholarCrossref 58.Pfeffer
MAStevenson
LW β-Adrenergic blockers and survival in heart failure.
N Engl J Med. 1996;3341396- 1397
Google ScholarCrossref 59.Krum
H β-Adrenoceptor blockers in chronic heart failure: a review.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44111- 118
Google ScholarCrossref 60.Kukin
MLKalman
JMannino
MFreudenberger
RBuchholz
COcampo
O Combined alpha-beta blockade (doxazosin plus metoprolol) compared with beta-blockade alone in chronic congestive heart failure.
Am J Cardiol. 1996;77486- 491
Google ScholarCrossref 61.Not Available, Metoprolol ups survival in heart failure.
Scrip. 1998;238827
Google Scholar