Cargando…

Dose-limiting, adverse event–associated bradycardia with β-blocker treatment of atrial fibrillation in the GENETIC-AF trial

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often have conduction system disorders, which may be worsened by β-blocker therapy. OBJECTIVE: In a post hoc analysis we examined the prevalence of bradycardia and its association with adverse events (AEs) and failure to achieve t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abraham, William T., Piccini, Jonathan P., Dufton, Christopher, Carroll, Ian A., Healey, Jeffrey S., O’Connor, Christopher M., Marshall, Debra, Aleong, Ryan, van Veldhuisen, Dirk J., Rienstra, Michiel, Wilton, Stephen B., White, Michel, Sauer, William H., Anand, Inder S., Huebler, Sophia P., Connolly, Stuart J., Bristow, Michael R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8859785/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35243434
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hroo.2021.11.005
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often have conduction system disorders, which may be worsened by β-blocker therapy. OBJECTIVE: In a post hoc analysis we examined the prevalence of bradycardia and its association with adverse events (AEs) and failure to achieve target dose in the GENETIC-AF trial. METHODS: Patients randomized to metoprolol (n = 125) or bucindolol (n = 131) entering 24-week efficacy follow-up and receiving study medication were evaluated. Bradycardia was defined as an electrocardiogram (ECG) heart rate (HR) <60 beats per minute (bpm) and severe bradycardia <50 bpm. RESULTS: Mean HR in sinus rhythm (SR) was 62.6 ± 12.5 bpm for metoprolol and 68.3 ± 11.1 bpm for bucindolol (P < .0001), but in AF HRs were not different (87.5 bpm vs 89.7 bpm, respectively). Episodes per patient for bucindolol vs metoprolol were 0.82 vs 2.08 (P < .001) for bradycardia and 0.24 vs 0.57 for severe bradycardia (P < .001), with 98.9% of the episodes occurring in SR. Patients experiencing bradycardia had a 4.15-fold higher prevalence of study medication dose reduction (P <.0001) compared to patients without bradycardia. Fewer patients receiving metoprolol were at target dose (61.7% vs 74.9% for bucindolol, P < .0001) at ECG recordings, and bradycardia AEs were more prevalent in the metoprolol group (13 vs 1 for bucindolol, P = .001). On multivariate analysis of 21 candidate bradycardia predictors including presence of a device with pacing capability, bucindolol treatment was associated with the greatest degree of prevention (Z(odds ratio) -4.24, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: In AF-prone HF patients bradycardia may limit the effectiveness of β blockers, and this property is agent-dependent.