OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of long-term beta blockers in patients with stable angina. METHODS: We reviewed the literature up to June 2010 from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CBM, and CNKI for randomized controlled trials. The appropriate data were meta-analysed using Revman 5.0. RESULTS: Twenty-six trials including 6108 patients were identified. The treatment with beta blockers has significantly decreased all-cause mortality when compared with no control (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.79), but has had no statistically differences when compared with placebo (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.38) and with calcium-channel blocker (CCB) (OR0.84, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.44). This was similar in patients with fatal and non-fatal acute myocardial infarction when compared with placebo (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17) or CCB (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.66); on revascularization and quality of life. The beta blockers reduced the incident of unstable angina compared to no treatment (OR 0.14, 95% CI0.07 to 0.29), but increased unstable angina compared to placebo (OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.36). There was a significant reduction of nitrate consumption when beta blockers were compared with CCBs (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.54 to 0.82),but not with placebo and trimetazidine. There was no significant difference in angina attack between each group. Side effects in beta blocker were similar with ones in controls. CONCLUSIONS: Beta blockers may decrease the death and unstable angina when compared with no treatment, but no more effective than other anti-anginal agents on prophylaxis of myocardial ischaemia in stable angina patients.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of long-term beta blockers in patients with stable angina. METHODS: We reviewed the literature up to June 2010 from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CBM, and CNKI for randomized controlled trials. The appropriate data were meta-analysed using Revman 5.0. RESULTS: Twenty-six trials including 6108 patients were identified. The treatment with beta blockers has significantly decreased all-cause mortality when compared with no control (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.79), but has had no statistically differences when compared with placebo (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.38) and with calcium-channel blocker (CCB) (OR0.84, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.44). This was similar in patients with fatal and non-fatal acute myocardial infarction when compared with placebo (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.17) or CCB (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.66); on revascularization and quality of life. The beta blockers reduced the incident of unstable angina compared to no treatment (OR 0.14, 95% CI0.07 to 0.29), but increased unstable angina compared to placebo (OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.50 to 7.36). There was a significant reduction of nitrate consumption when beta blockers were compared with CCBs (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.54 to 0.82),but not with placebo and trimetazidine. There was no significant difference in angina attack between each group. Side effects in beta blocker were similar with ones in controls. CONCLUSIONS: Beta blockers may decrease the death and unstable angina when compared with no treatment, but no more effective than other anti-anginal agents on prophylaxis of myocardial ischaemia in stable anginapatients.
Authors: Stephan R Maman; Alvaro F Vargas; Tariq Ali Ahmad; Amanda J Miller; Zhaohui Gao; Urs A Leuenberger; David N Proctor; Matthew D Muller Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2017-06-01