α/ß- and ß-Blocker Exposure in Pregnancy and the Risk of Neonatal Hypoglycemia and Small for Gestational Age.

BACKGROUND: α/ß- and ß-blockers are essential in pregnant women's perinatal congenital heart disease management. Nevertheless, data on the effects of α/ß- and ß-blockers on pregnant women and fetuses are limited. We examined the risks of neonatal hypoglycemia and small for gestational age (SGA) associated with maternal exposure to α/ß- and ß-blockers.Methods and Results: All consecutive pregnant women with heart disease admitted to our hospital between January 2014 and October 2020 were included. Of 306 pregnancies (267 women), 32 were in the α/ß-blocker group, 11 were in the ß-blocker group, and 263 were in the control group. All 32 pregnancies in the α/ß-blocker group were treated with carvedilol. In the ß-blocker group, 4 women were treated with bisoprolol, 3 were treated with propranolol, 2 were treated with atenolol, 1 was treated with metoprolol, and 1 was treated nadolol. The incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia was higher in pregnant women taking carvedilol than in the control group (P=0.025). SGA was observed significantly more frequently in pregnant women taking ß-blockers than in the carvedilol and control groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Carvedilol administration during pregnancy was associated with neonatal hypoglycemia; however, it did not occur in a time- or dose-dependent manner. Routine monitoring of blood glucose levels in newborns exposed to α/ß- and ß-blockers is essential.

Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Immediate-Release Versus SLOW-Release Carvedilol in Heart Failure Patient (SLOW-HF): a Prospective Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: Carvedilol demonstrated therapeutic benefits in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, it had a short half-life time mandating twice a day administration. We investigated whether slow-release carvedilol (carvedilol-SR) is non-inferior to standard immediate-release carvedilol (carvedilol-IR) in terms of clinical efficacy in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with HFrEF to receive carvedilol-SR once a day or carvedilol-IR twice a day. The primary endpoint was the change in N-terminal pro B-natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level from baseline to 6 months after randomization. The secondary outcomes were proportion of patients with NT-proBNP increment > 10% from baseline, mortality rate, readmission rate, changes in blood pressure, quality of life, and drug compliance. RESULTS: A total of 272 patients were randomized and treated (median follow-up time, 173 days). In each group of patients taking carvedilol-SR and those taking carvedilol-IR, clinical characteristics were well balanced. No patient died during follow-up, and there was no significant difference in the change of NT-proBNP level between two groups (-107.4 [-440.2-70.3] pg/mL vs. -91.2 [-504.1-37.4] pg/mL, p = 0.101). Change of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, control rate and response rate of blood pressure, readmission rate, and drug compliance rate were also similar. For safety outcomes, the occurrence of adverse reactions did not differ between carvedilol-SR group and carvedilol-IR group. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol-SR once a day was non-inferior to carvedilol-IR twice a day in patients with HFrEF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03209180 (registration date: July 6, 2017).

Rationale and Design of the Cardiac CARE Trial: A Randomized Trial of Troponin-Guided Neurohormonal Blockade for the Prevention of Anthracycline Cardiotoxicity.

BACKGROUND: Anthracyclines are effective cytotoxic drugs used in the treatment of breast cancer and lymphoma but are associated with myocardial injury, left ventricular dysfunction, and heart failure. Anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity is highly variable in severity and without a proven therapeutic intervention. ß-Adrenergic receptor blockers and renin-angiotensin-system inhibitor therapies have been associated with modest cardioprotective effects in unselected patients. METHODS: The Cardiac CARE trial is a multicentre prospective randomized open-label blinded end point trial of combination ß-adrenergic receptor blocker and renin-angiotensin-system inhibitor therapy in patients with breast cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving anthracycline chemotherapy that is associated with myocardial injury. Patients at higher risk of cardiotoxicity with plasma high-sensitivity cTnI (cardiac troponin I) concentrations in the upper tertile at the end of chemotherapy are randomized to standard of care plus combination candesartan and carvedilol therapy or standard of care alone. All patients undergo cardiac magnetic resonance imaging before and 6 months after anthracycline treatment. The primary end point is the change in left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 months after chemotherapy. In low-risk nonrandomized patients, left ventricular ejection fraction before and 6 months after anthracycline will be compared with define the specificity of the high-sensitivity cTnI assay for identifying low-risk participants who do not develop left ventricular systolic dysfunction. DISCUSSION: Cardiac CARE will examine whether cardiac biomarker monitoring identifies patients at risk of left ventricular dysfunction following anthracycline chemotherapy and whether troponin-guided treatment with combination candesartan and carvedilol therapy prevents the development of left ventricular dysfunction in these high-risk patients.

Effect of Beta-Blocker Cardioselectivity on Vascular Refilling in Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: ß-Blockers are the most frequently prescribed cardioprotective drugs in hemodialysis (HD) patients, despite their weak evidence. We sought to evaluate the effects of ß-blockers on vascular refilling during HD treatments and examine whether carvedilol, for being noncardioselective and poorly dialyzable, associates more impact than others. METHODS: The study was performed in a cohort of maintenance HD patients from a tertiary center. All patients had previous ß-blocker prescription. We conducted a prospective crossover study and measured vascular refilling volume (Vref) and vascular refilling fraction (Fref) in 2 circumstances: under ß-blocker treatment (ßb profile) and without ß-blocker effect (non-ßb profile). RESULTS: Twenty patients were included, 10 of whom were treated with carvedilol. Predialysis values were comparable between the 2 profiles. Although the ßb profile showed lower Vref and higher ABV drop, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Data showed an increase in Fref in the non-ßb profile (70.01 ± 6.80% vs. 63.14 ± 11.65%; p = 0.015). The ßb profile associated a significantly higher risk of intradialytic hypotension (IDH) (risk ratio 2.40; 95% CI: 1.04-5.55). When analyzing separately the carvedilol group, patients dialyzed under drug effect experienced a significant impairment in Vref, Fref, and refilling rate. CONCLUSIONS: Administering ß-blockers before HD associated a higher risk of IDH and a decrease in Fref. Patients dialyzed under carvedilol effect showed an impaired refilling, probably related to its noncardioselectivity and lower dializability.

Comprehensive Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of First-Line ß-Blocker Monotherapy in Hypertensive Patients: A Large-Scale Multicenter Observational Study.

[Figure: see text].

Carvedilol blocks neural regulation of breast cancer progression in vivo and is associated with reduced breast cancer mortality in patients.

PURPOSE: The sympathetic nervous system drives breast cancer progression through ß-adrenergic receptor signalling. This discovery has led to the consideration of cardiac ß-blocker drugs as novel strategies for anticancer therapies. Carvedilol is a ß-blocker used in the management of cardiovascular disorders, anxiety, migraine and chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity. However, little is known about how carvedilol affects cancer-related outcomes. METHODS: To address this, we investigated the effects of carvedilol on breast cancer cell lines, in mouse models of breast cancer and in a large cohort of patients with breast cancer (n = 4014). RESULTS: Treatment with carvedilol blocked the effects of sympathetic nervous system activation, reducing primary tumour growth and metastasis in a mouse model of breast cancer and preventing invasion by breast cancer cell lines. A retrospective analysis found that women using carvedilol at breast cancer diagnosis (n = 136) had reduced breast cancer-specific mortality compared with women who did not (n = 3878) (5-year cumulative incidence of breast cancer deaths: 3.1% versus 5.7%; p = 0.024 and 0.076 from univariate and multivariable analyses, respectively) after a median follow-up of 5.5 years. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide a rationale to further explore the use of the ß-blocker carvedilol as a novel strategy to slow cancer progression.

Ex Ante Economic Evaluation of Arg389 Genetically Targeted Treatment with Bucindolol versus Empirical Treatment with Carvedilol in NYHA III/IV Heart Failure.

OBJECTIVE: The Beta-Blocker Evaluation Survival Trial showed no survival benefit for bucindolol in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction, but subanalyses suggested survival benefits for non-Black subjects and Arg389 homozygotes. We conducted an ex ante economic evaluation of Arg389 targeted treatment with bucindolol versus carvidolol, complementing a previous ex ante economic evaluation of bucindolol preceded by genetic testing for the Arg389 polymorphism, in which genetic testing prevailed economically over no testing. METHODS: A decision tree analysis with an 18-month time horizon was performed to estimate the cost effectiveness/cost utility of trajectories of 100%, 50%, and 0% of patients genetically tested for Arg389 and comparing bucindolol with empirical carvedilol treatment as per prior BEST subanalyses. Incremental cost-effectiveness/cost-utility ratios (ICERs/ICURs) were estimated. RESULTS: Race-based analyses for non-White subjects at 100% testing showed a loss of (0.04) life-years and (0.03) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of $2185, yielding a negative ICER of ($54,625)/life-year and ICUR of ($72,833)/QALY lost; at 50%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.27) life-years and (0.16) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1843, yielding a negative ICER of ($6826)/life-year and ICUR of ($11,519)/QALY lost; at 0%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.33) life-years and (0.30) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1459, yielding a negative ICER of ($4421)/life-year and ICUR of ($4863)/QALY lost. Arg389 homozygote analyses at 100% testing showed incremental gains of 0.02 life-years and 0.02 QALYs at an incremental cost of $378, yielding an ICER of 18,900/life-year and ICUR of $18,900/QALY gained; at 50%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.24) life-years and (0.09) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1039, yielding a negative ICER of ($4329)/life-year and ICUR of ($9336)/QALY lost; at 0%, the analyses showed a loss of (0.33) life-years and (0.30) QALYs at an incremental cost of $1459, yielding a negative ICER of ($4421)/life-year and ICUR of ($4863)/QALY lost. CONCLUSION: This independent ex ante economic evaluation suggests that genetically targeted treatment with bucindolol is unlikely to yield clinicoeconomic benefits over empirical treatment with carvedilol in NYHA III/IV HF.

Effect of carvedilol on arteriovenous graft primary patency.

BACKGROUND: The major mechanisms of arteriovenous graft (AVG) failure due to intimal hyperplasia (IH) are smooth muscle cell proliferation and inflammation. Therefore, carvedilol may improve AVG primary patency because of its anti-proliferative and anti-inflammatory activities. METHODS: The data of end-stage renal disease patients receiving regular hemodialysis were collected from the National Health Insurance Research database. The end point was the first percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) for AVG failure or death during a follow-up period of two years or the end of 2013. The analysis was calculated with Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: There were 3028 patients treated with carvedilol and 13,704 patients not treated with carvedilol. According to a univariate analysis, the carvedilol group was younger, received more anti-hypertensive medications and platelet aggregation inhibitors, and had higher rates of diabetes mellitus and hyperlipidemia but had lower rates of hypotension and smoking. According to a multivariate analysis, after controlling for covariates, the use of carvedilol for more than 84 days reduced the probability of a first PTA for AVG failure by 9% compared with no use of carvedilol (p = 0.021), but the use of carvedilol for 1 to 84 days did not. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicate that the use of carvedilol for more than 84 days improves the primary patency of AVGs, but the use of carvedilol for less than 84 days does not.

Effects of ß2-receptor stimulation by indacaterol in chronic heart failure treated with selective or non-selective ß-blockers: a randomized trial.

Alveolar ß2-receptor blockade worsens lung diffusion in heart failure (HF). This effect could be mitigated by stimulating alveolar ß2-receptors. We investigated the safety and the effects of indacaterol on lung diffusion, lung mechanics, sleep respiratory behavior, cardiac rhythm, welfare, and exercise performance in HF patients treated with a selective (bisoprolol) or a non-selective (carvedilol) ß-blocker. Study procedures were performed before and after indacaterol and placebo treatments according to a cross-over, randomized, double-blind protocol in forty-four patients (27 on bisoprolol and 17 on carvedilol). No differences between indacaterol and placebo were observed in the whole population except for a significantly higher VE/VCO2 slope and lower maximal PETCO2 during exercise with indacaterol, entirely due to the difference in the bisoprolol group (VE/VCO2 31.8 ± 5.9 vs. 28.5 ± 5.6, p < 0.0001 and maximal PETCO2 36.7 ± 5.5 vs. 37.7 ± 5.8 mmHg, p < 0.02 with indacaterol and placebo, respectively). In carvedilol, indacaterol was associated with a higher peak heart rate (119 ± 34 vs. 113 ± 30 bpm, with indacaterol and placebo) and a lower prevalence of hypopnea during sleep (3.8 [0.0;6.3] vs. 5.8 [2.9;10.5] events/hour, with indacaterol and placebo). Inhaled indacaterol is well tolerated in HF patients, it does not influence lung diffusion, and, in bisoprolol, it increases ventilation response to exercise.

BRASH syndrome.

A 62-year-old woman with chronic kidney disease stage 4, sleep apnoea on continuous positive airway pressure and recent admission for acute-on-chronic diastolic heart failure presented to emergency room with weakness. She was hypotensive and had symptomatic bradycardia in the 30 s secondary to hyperkalaemia and beta-blockers, raising concern for BRASH syndrome. Antihypertensives were immediately held. Potassium-lowering agents (with calcium gluconate for cardiac stability) were begun, as were fluids and dopamine for vasopressor support. The patient was admitted to intensive care unit and electrophysiology was consulted. Over the next 2 days, the patient clinically improved: she remained off dopamine for over 24 hours; potassium levels and renal function improved; and heart rate stabilised in 60 s. The patient was eventually discharged and advised to avoid metolazone, bumetanide and carvedilol, with primary care provider and cardiology follow-up.

Long-term outcome of carvedilol therapy in Japanese patients with nonischemic heart failure.

Nonischemic heart failure (HF) is common in Japan. We evaluated the long-term outcome of Japanese patients with nonischemic HF receiving carvedilol based on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) category. We conducted a single-center observation study of 1550 patients with nonischemic HF who were initiated with carvedilol between 2005 and 2015. Of these patients, 38% had an LVEF < 40% (HFrEF, median age 57 years, 28% female) and 62% had an LVEF ≥ 40% (HFpEF, 64 years, 38% female). The primary outcome was all-cause.death The secondary outcomes were cardiac death and sudden cardiac death (SCD). After a median follow-up of 5.5 [interquartile range, 2.9-8.8] years, the median daily maintenance doses of carvedilol in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF were 7.5 [5-12.5] mg and 7.5 [5-10] mg, respectively. The cumulative survival rates of HFrEF patients at 1, 3 and 5 years were 96.1%, 90.2% and 85.5%, respectively, and the cumulative survival rates of HFpEF patients at 1, 3 and 5 years were 97.8%, 94.4% and 90.7%, respectively. The cumulative cardiac death-free rates at 5 years were 94.4% in HFrEF patients and 97.7% in HFpEF patients, and the cumulative SCD-free rates at 5 years were 96.7% in HFrEF patients and 97.9% in HFpEF patients. The adjusted survival rate showed that a higher dose (≥ 7.5 mg daily) was associated with more favourable outcomes than a lower dose (< 7.5 mg daily) in HFrEF patients, but not in HFpEF patients. The adjusted survival rate showed that a lower heart rate (< 75 bpm) was associated with favourable outcomes than a higher heart rate (≥ 75 bpm) in HFrEF patients, but not in HFpEF patients. Long-term survival was good in Japanese patients with nonischemic HF receiving carvedilol. Higher doses and lower heart rates were associated with favourable survival for HFrEF patients, but not in HFpEF patients.

Effect of beta blocker use and type on hypoglycemia risk among hospitalized insulin requiring patients.

BACKGROUND: Although beta blockers could increase the risk of hypoglycemia, the difference between subtypes on hypoglycemia and mortality have not been studied. This study sought to determine the relationship between type of beta blocker and incidence of hypoglycemia and mortality in hospitalized patients. METHODS: We retrospectively identified non-critically ill hospitalized insulin requiring patients who were undergoing bedside glucose monitoring and received either carvedilol or a selective beta blocker (metoprolol or atenolol). Patients receiving other beta blockers were excluded. Hypoglycemia was defined as any glucose < 3.9 mmol/L within 24 h of admission (Hypo1day) or throughout hospitalization (HypoT) and any glucose < 2.2 mmol/L throughout hospitalization (Hyposevere). RESULTS: There were 1020 patients on carvedilol, 886 on selective beta blockers, and 10,216 on no beta blocker at admission. After controlling for other variables, the odds of Hypo1day, HypoT and Hyposevere were higher for carvedilol and selective beta blocker recipients than non-recipients, but only in basal insulin nonusers. The odds of Hypo1day (odds ratio [OR] 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28, 3.09, p = 0.0002) and HypoT (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.02, 1.86, p = 0.03) but not Hyposevere (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.90, 4.02, p = 0.09) were greater for selective beta blocker vs. carvedilol recipients in basal insulin nonusers. Hypo1day, HypoT, and Hyposevere were all associated with increased mortality in adjusted models among non-beta blocker and selective beta blocker recipients, but not among carvedilol recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Beta blocker use is associated with increased odds of hypoglycemia among hospitalized patients not requiring basal insulin, and odds are greater for selective beta blockers than for carvedilol. The odds of hypoglycemia-associated mortality are increased with selective beta blocker use or nonusers but not in carvedilol users, warranting further study.

Dynamic Changes in the Molecular Signature of Adverse Left Ventricular Remodeling in Patients With Compensated and Decompensated Chronic Primary Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: There is no proven medical therapy that attenuates adverse left ventricular remodeling in patients with chronic primary mitral regurgitation (CPMR). Identification of molecular pathways important in the progression of left ventricular remodeling in patients with CPMR may lead to development of new therapeutic strategies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed baseline echocardiographic, cardiac catheterization, and serum NT-pro-BNP analysis in patients with severe CPMR awaiting mitral valve surgery and stratified the study population into compensated or decompensated CPMR. We obtained left ventricular endomyocardial biopsies (n=12) for mRNA expression analysis, and compared baseline transcript levels of 109 genes important in volume-overload left ventricular remodeling with levels in normal hearts (n=5) and between patients with compensated (n=6) versus decompensated (n=6) CPMR. Patients were then randomized to treatment with and without carvedilol and followed until the time of surgery (mean follow-up 8.3 months) when repeat endomyocardial biopsies were obtained to correlate transcriptional dynamics with indices of adverse remodeling. CPMR was associated with increased NPPA expression levels (21.6-fold, P=0.004), decreased transcripts of genes important in cell survival, and enrichment of extracellular matrix genes. Decompensated CPMR was associated with downregulation of SERCA2 (0.77-fold, P=0.009) and mitochondrial gene expression levels and upregulation of genes related to inflammation, the extracellular matrix, and apoptosis, which were refractory to carvedilol therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Transition to decompensated CPMR is associated with calcium dysregulation, increased expression of inflammatory, extracellular matrix and apoptotic genes, and downregulation of genes important in bioenergetics. These changes are not attenuated by carvedilol therapy and highlight the need for development of specific combinatorial therapies, targeting myocardial inflammation and apoptosis, together with urgent surgical or percutaneous valve interventions.

The Man Who Saw Things on Carvedilol.

The newer generation non selective vasodilating beta adrenergic blocking agent Carvedilol, also has an alpha 1 adrenoceptor antagonistic effect and is widely used in treating various cardiovascular diseases. It is a selective alpha and non-selective beta blocker. It's side effects are vast and not limited to any particular organ system, the neuropsychiatric adverse effects include; somnolence, nervousness, sleep disorder, aggravated depression, vivid dreams, delirium, psychosis, impaired concentration, abnormal thinking, paroniria, and emotional lability. Hallucinations are rarely reported and as far as we know the only reported couple of cases were on metoprolol and propranolol, none has been reported with Carvedilol.

Randomized Trial of Lisinopril Versus Carvedilol to Prevent Trastuzumab Cardiotoxicity in Patients With Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab is highly effective for human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer but is associated with a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or beta-blockers reduce the rate of trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity (left ventricular ejection fraction decrease >10%, or >5% if below 50%) and limit treatment interruptions. METHODS: In this double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, cardiotoxicity and treatment interruptions in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab for 12 months were evaluated over a 2-year period. Patients were stratified by anthracycline use and then randomized to receive lisinopril, carvedilol, or placebo. RESULTS: The study included 468 women, age 51 ± 10.7 years. For the entire cohort, cardiotoxicity was comparable in the 3 arms and occurred in 32% of patients on placebo, 29% on carvedilol, and 30% on lisinopril. For patients receiving anthracyclines, the event rates were higher in the placebo group (47%) than in the lisinopril (37%) and the carvedilol (31%) groups. Cardiotoxicity-free survival was longer on both carvedilol (hazard ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 0.89; p = 0.009) and lisinopril (hazard ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.94; p = 0.015) than on placebo. In the whole cohort, as well as in the anthracycline arm, patients on active therapy with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or beta-blockers experienced fewer interruptions in trastuzumab than those on placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with trastuzumab, both lisinopril and carvedilol prevented cardiotoxicity in patients receiving anthracyclines. For such patients, lisinopril or carvedilol should be considered to minimize interruptions of trastuzumab. (Lisinopril or Coreg CR in Reducing Side Effects in Women With Breast Cancer Receiving Trastuzumab; NCT01009918).

A Comparative Study of the Use of Mesoporous Carbon and Mesoporous Silica as Drug Carriers for Oral Delivery of the Water-Insoluble Drug Carvedilol.

Mesoporous carriers have been extensively applied to improve the dissolution velocity and bioavailability of insoluble drugs. The goal of this work was to compare the drug-loading efficiency (LE) and drug-dissolution properties of mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSN) and mesoporous carbon nanoparticles (MCN) as drug vectors oral delivery of water-insoluble drugs. For this purpose, MSN and MCN with similar particle size, surface area, and mesoporous diameter were prepared to precisely evaluate the effects of different textures on the drug-loading and dissolution behavior of insoluble drugs. Carvedilol (CAR), a Bio-pharmaceutic Classification System (BCS) class II drug, was loaded in the MSN and MCN by the solvent adsorption method and solvent evaporation method with different carrier-drug ratios. The carboxylated MCN (MCN-COOH) had a higher LE for CAR than MSN for both the two loading methods due to the strong adsorption effect and π-π stacking force with CAR. In vitro drug dissolution study showed that both MSN and MCN-COOH could improve the dissolution rate of CAR compared with the micronized CAR. In comparison to MSN, MCN-COOH displayed a slightly slower dissolution profile, which may be ascribed to the strong interaction between MCN-COOH and CAR. Observation of cell cytotoxicity and gastrointestinal mucosa irritation demonstrated the good biocompatibility of both MSN and MCN-COOH. The present study encourages further research of different carriers to determine their potential application in oral administration.

Sevoflurane, Propofol and Carvedilol Block Myocardial Protection by Limb Remote Ischemic Preconditioning.

The effects of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) in cardiac surgery have been inconsistent. We investigated whether anesthesia or beta-blockers interfere with RIPC cardioprotection. Fifty patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomized to receive limb RIPC (four cycles of 5-min of upper arm cuff inflation/deflation) in the awake state (no-anesthesia; n = 17), or under sevoflurane (n = 17) or propofol (n = 16) anesthesia. In a separate crossover study, 11 healthy volunteers received either carvedilol or no medication prior to RIPC. Plasma dialysates were obtained and perfused through an isolated male Sprague⁻Dawley rat heart subjected to 30-min ischemia/60-min reperfusion, following which myocardial infarct (MI) size was determined. In the cardiac surgery study, pre-RIPC MI sizes were similar among the groups (39.7 ± 4.5% no-anesthesia, 38.9 ± 5.3% sevoflurane, and 38.6 ± 3.6% propofol). However, post-RIPC MI size was reduced in the no-anesthesia group (27.5 ± 8.0%; p < 0.001), but not in the anesthesia groups (35.7 ± 6.9% sevoflurane and 35.8 ± 5.8% propofol). In the healthy volunteer study, there was a reduction in MI size with RIPC in the no-carvedilol group (41.7 ± 4.3% to 30.6 ± 8.5%; p < 0.0001), but not in the carvedilol group (41.0 ± 4.0% to 39.6 ± 5.6%; p = 0.452). We found that the cardioprotective effects of limb RIPC were abolished under propofol or sevoflurane anesthesia and in the presence of carvedilol therapy.

The mortality benefit of carvedilol versus bisoprolol in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: It is unknown whether different ß-blockers (BBs) have variable effects on long-term survival of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study compares the effects of two BBs, carvedilol and bisoprolol, on survival in patients with HFrEF. METHODS: The Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry is a prospective multicenter cohort that includes 5,625 patients who were hospitalized for acute heart failure (AHF). We selected 3,016 patients with HFrEF and divided this study population into two groups: BB at discharge (n = 1,707) or no BB at discharge (n = 1,309). Among patients with BB at discharge, subgroups were formed based on carvedilol prescription (n = 831), or bisoprolol prescription (n = 553). Propensity score matching analysis was performed. RESULTS: Among patients who were prescribed a BB at discharge, 60.5% received carvedilol and 32.7% received bisoprolol. There was a significant reduction in allcause mortality in those patients with HFrEF prescribed a BB at discharge compared to those who were not (BB vs. no BB, 26.1% vs. 40.8%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.67; p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of all-cause mortality between those receiving different types of BB (carvedilol vs. bisoprolol, 27.5% vs. 23.5%; HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.47; p = 0.07). Similar results were observed after propensity score matching analysis (508 pairs, 26.2% vs. 23.8%; HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.40; p = 0.47). CONCLUSION: In the treatment of AHF with reduced EF after hospitalization, mortality benefits of carvedilol and bisoprolol were comparable.

Carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices.

BACKGROUND: Non-selective beta-blockers are recommended for the prevention of bleeding in people with cirrhosis, portal hypertension and gastroesophageal varices. Carvedilol is a non-selective beta-blocker with additional intrinsic alpha1-blocking effects, which may be superior to traditional, non-selective beta-blockers in reducing portal pressure and, therefore, in reducing the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of carvedilol compared with traditional, non-selective beta-blockers for adults with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices. SEARCH METHODS: We combined searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary's Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Science Citation Index with manual searches. The last search update was 08 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, irrespective of publication status, blinding, or language. We included trials evaluating both primary and secondary prevention of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in adults with cirrhosis and verified gastroesophageal varices. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (AZ, RJ and LH), independently extracted data. The primary outcome measures were mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events. We undertook meta-analyses and presented results using risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and I2 values as a marker of heterogeneity. We assessed bias control using the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary domains and the quality of the evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria. One trial did not report clinical outcomes. We included the remaining 10 randomised clinical trials, involving 810 participants with cirrhosis and oesophageal varices, in our analyses. The intervention comparisons were carvedilol versus propranolol (nine trials), or nadolol (one trial). Six trials were of short duration (mean 6 (range 1 to 12) weeks), while four were of longer duration (13.5 (6 to 30) months). Three trials evaluated primary prevention; three evaluated secondary prevention; while four evaluated both primary and secondary prevention. We classified all trials as at 'high risk of bias'. We gathered mortality data from seven trials involving 507 participants; no events occurred in four of these. Sixteen of 254 participants receiving carvedilol and 19 of 253 participants receiving propranolol or nadolol died (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). There appeared to be no differences between carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers and the risks of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.37; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 45%, very low-quality evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42; 810 participants; 10 trials; I2 = 14%, low-quality evidence). Significantly more deaths, episodes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding and serious adverse events occurred in the long-term trials but there was not enough information to determine whether there were differences between carvedilol and traditional, non-selective beta-blockers, by trial duration. There was also insufficient information to detect differences in the effects of these interventions in trials evaluating primary or secondary prevention. There appeared to be no differences in the risk of non-serious adverse events between carvedilol versus its comparators (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.29; 596 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 88%; very low-quality evidence). Use of carvedilol was associated with a greater reduction in hepatic venous pressure gradient than traditional, non-selective beta-blockers both in absolute (MD -1.75 mmHg, 95% CI -2.60 to -0.89; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence) and percentage terms (MD -8.02%, 95% CI -11.49% to -4.55%; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). However, we did not observe a concomitant reduction in the number of participants who failed to achieve a sufficient haemodynamic response (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; 368 participants; 6 trials; I2 = 42%; very low-quality evidence) or in clinical outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear beneficial or harmful effects of carvedilol versus traditional, non-selective beta-blockers on mortality, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, serious or non-serious adverse events despite the fact that carvedilol was more effective at reducing the hepatic venous pressure gradient. However, the evidence was of low or very low quality, and hence the findings are uncertain. Additional evidence is required from adequately powered, long-term, double-blind, randomised clinical trials, which evaluate both clinical and haemodynamic outcomes.