Beta-Blockers after Myocardial Infarction and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Most trials that have shown a benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction included patients with large myocardial infarctions and were conducted in an era before modern biomarker-based diagnosis of myocardial infarction and treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention, antithrombotic agents, high-intensity statins, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists. METHODS: In a parallel-group, open-label trial performed at 45 centers in Sweden, Estonia, and New Zealand, we randomly assigned patients with an acute myocardial infarction who had undergone coronary angiography and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% to receive either long-term treatment with a beta-blocker (metoprolol or bisoprolol) or no beta-blocker treatment. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction. RESULTS: From September 2017 through May 2023, a total of 5020 patients were enrolled (95.4% of whom were from Sweden). The median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.7). A primary end-point event occurred in 199 of 2508 patients (7.9%) in the beta-blocker group and in 208 of 2512 patients (8.3%) in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.16; P = 0.64). Beta-blocker treatment did not appear to lead to a lower cumulative incidence of the secondary end points (death from any cause, 3.9% in the beta-blocker group and 4.1% in the no-beta-blocker group; death from cardiovascular causes, 1.5% and 1.3%, respectively; myocardial infarction, 4.5% and 4.7%; hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, 1.1% and 1.4%; and hospitalization for heart failure, 0.8% and 0.9%). With regard to safety end points, hospitalization for bradycardia, second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, hypotension, syncope, or implantation of a pacemaker occurred in 3.4% of the patients in the beta-blocker group and in 3.2% of those in the no-beta-blocker group; hospitalization for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 0.6% and 0.6%, respectively; and hospitalization for stroke in 1.4% and 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent early coronary angiography and had a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%), long-term beta-blocker treatment did not lead to a lower risk of the composite primary end point of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction than no beta-blocker use. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; REDUCE-AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03278509.).

Design and rationale of randomized evaluation of decreased usage of beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction (REDUCE-AMI).

AIMS: Most trials showing benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction (MI) included patients with large MIs and are from an era before modern biomarker-based MI diagnosis and reperfusion treatment. The aim of the randomized evaluation of decreased usage of beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction (REDUCE-AMI) trial is to determine whether long-term oral beta-blockade in patients with an acute MI and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) reduces the composite endpoint of death of any cause or recurrent MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: It is a registry-based, randomized, parallel, open-label, multicentre trial performed at 38 centres in Sweden, 1 centre in Estonia, and 6 centres in New Zealand. About 5000 patients with an acute MI who have undergone coronary angiography and with EF ≥ 50% will be randomized to long-term treatment with beta-blockade or not. The primary endpoint is the composite endpoint of death of any cause or new non-fatal MI. There are several secondary endpoints, including all-cause death, cardiovascular death, new MI, readmission because of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, symptoms, functional status, and health-related quality of life after 6-10 weeks and after 1 year of treatment. Safety endpoints are bradycardia, AV-block II-III, hypotension, syncope or need for pacemaker, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke. CONCLUSION: The results from REDUCE-AMI will add important evidence regarding the effect of beta-blockers in patients with MI and preserved EF and may change guidelines and clinical practice.

Patient-oriented risk score for predicting death 1 year after myocardial infarction: the SweDen risk score.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to derive, based on the SWEDEHEART registry, and validate, using the Western Denmark Heart registry, a patient-oriented risk score, the SweDen score, which could calculate the risk of 1-year mortality following a myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: The factors included in the SweDen score were age, sex, smoking, diabetes, heart failure and statin use. These were chosen a priori by the SWEDEHEART steering group based on the premise that the factors were information known by the patients themselves. The score was evaluated using various statistical methods such as time-dependent receiver operating characteristics curves of the linear predictor, area under the curve metrics, Kaplan-Meier survivor curves and the calibration slope. RESULTS: The area under the curve values were 0.81 in the derivation data and 0.76 in the validation data. The Kaplan-Meier curves showed similar patient profiles across datasets. The calibration slope was 1.03 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.08) in the validation data using the linear predictor from the derivation data. CONCLUSIONS: The SweDen risk score is a novel tool created for patient use. The risk score calculator will be available online and presents mortality risk on a colour scale to simplify interpretation and to avoid exact life span expectancies. It provides a validated patient-oriented risk score predicting the risk of death within 1 year after suffering an MI, which visualises the benefit of statin use and smoking cessation in a simple way.

Randomized evaluation of beta blocker and ACE-inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker treatment in patients with myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA-BAT): Rationale and design.

Myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is common and occurs in 6-8% of all patients fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This paper describes the rationale behind the trial 'Randomized Evaluation of Beta Blocker and ACE-Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Treatment (ACEI/ARB) of MINOCA patients' (MINOCA-BAT) and the need to improve the secondary preventive treatment of MINOCA patients. METHODS: MINOCA-BAT is a registry-based, randomized, parallel, open-label, multicenter trial with 2:2 factorial design. The primary aim is to determine whether oral beta blockade compared with no oral beta blockade, and ACEI/ARB compared with no ACEI/ARB, reduce the composite endpoint of death of any cause, readmission because of AMI, ischemic stroke or heart failure in patients discharged after MINOCA without clinical signs of heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%. A total of 3500 patients will be randomized into four groups; e.g. ACEI/ARB and beta blocker, beta blocker only, ACEI/ARB only and neither ACEI/ARB nor beta blocker, and followed for a mean of 4 years. SUMMARY: While patients with MINOCA have an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events and death, whether conventional secondary preventive therapies are beneficial has not been assessed in randomized trials. There is a limited basis for guideline recommendations in MINOCA. Furthermore, studies of routine clinical practice suggest that use of secondary prevention therapies in MINOCA varies considerably. Thus results from this trial may influence future treatment strategies and guidelines specific to MINOCA patients.

Study of Patient Information after percutaneous Coronary Intervention (SPICI): should prevention programmes become more effective?

AIMS: This cross-sectional observational study was designed to evaluate the uptake and outcome of patient education after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: A questionnaire containing 41 items was handed out to consecutive patients from randomly selected Swedish hospitals after PCI. Questions concerned the patient's attribution of the cause of the cardiac event, perception of the information provided by physicians and nurses, and a self-assessment of changes in lifestyle post PCI regarding tobacco, physical activity, food habits and stress. Replies were obtained from 1,073 patients (reply rate 67%). Non-modifiable risk factors (age, heredity) were attributed a higher rate as the cause of disease compared to modifiable factors (smoking, physical activity, food habits). Most patients (67%) perceived they were cured, and 38% perceived from the given information that there was no need to change their habits. A mere 27% reported that they still had cardiovascular disease and needed behavioural change. After PCI, 16% continued to use tobacco; half of these were offered smoking cessation support. In spite of an 80% referral rate to cardiac rehabilitation, one out of two patients did not enrol. Fewer than half were regularly physically active. Nutritional counselling was provided to 71%, but only 40% changed food habits. Stress management programmes were rarely provided. CONCLUSIONS: Current preventive practice scarcely meets the challenge posed by the progress in modern invasive cardiology. The Study of Patient Information after percutaneous Coronary Intervention (SPICI) motivates an in-depth revision and adaptation of cardiac rehabilitation programmes in order to improve patient understanding of the disease, and to support greater compliance with a cardioprotective lifestyle.

[Rehabilitation and secondary prevention in coronary disease. Patient association's survey has yielded improved aftercare]. / Rehabilitering och sekundär prevention vid kranskärlssjukdom. Patientföreningens kartläggning har gett en bättre eftervård.

According to national Swedish guidelines cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation should be available for all coronary patients. Yet, over the years the access to this service has varied considerably between Swedish hospitals. Over the past five years the National Heart- and Lung Patients' Association has been engaged in a major staff training and research effort within this field assisted by a medical expert group. In assuring the quality of these efforts hospitals have been audited using a grading system of one to five hearts: one heart meaning an unsatisfactory level, five hearts an optimal level of care. An evaluation has shown that the support and grading has contributed to an improvement of preventive and rehabilitation care, though the ultimate goal of "five hearts for all" still remains to be achieved.