OBJECTIVES: The authors analyzed the association between outpatient β-blocker type and day-of-surgery (DOS) heart rate in ambulatory surgical patients. They further investigated whether differences in DOS heart rate between atenolol and metoprolol could be explained by once-daily versus twice-daily dosing regimens. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Veterans Administration hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory surgical patients on long-term atenolol or metoprolol. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using a propensity-score-matched cohort, DOS heart rates were compared in patients prescribed atenolol versus metoprolol. Then, once-daily and twice-daily metoprolol formulations were differentiated and DOS heart rates were compared within a general linear model. DOS heart rates in patients prescribed atenolol versus any metoprolol formulation were slower by a mean of 5.1 beats/min (66.6 v 71.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] of difference, 1.9-8.3; p = 0.002), a difference that was not observed in preoperative primary care visits. The general linear model showed that patients prescribed atenolol (typically once-daily dosing) had a mean DOS heart rate 5.6 beats/min lower compared with patients prescribed once-daily metoprolol succinate (68.9 v 74.5; 95% CI of difference, -8.6 to -2.6; p < 0.001) and 3.8 beats/min lower compared with patients prescribed twice-daily metoprolol tartrate (68.9 v 72.7; 95% CI of difference, -6.1 to -1.6; p < 0.001). DOS heart rates were similar between different formulations of metoprolol (95% CI of difference, -1.0 to +4.6; p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Atenolol is associated with a lower DOS heart rate versus metoprolol. The heart rate difference is specific to the day of surgery and is not explained by once-daily versus twice-daily dosing regimens.
OBJECTIVES: The authors analyzed the association between outpatient β-blocker type and day-of-surgery (DOS) heart rate in ambulatory surgical patients. They further investigated whether differences in DOS heart rate between atenolol and metoprolol could be explained by once-daily versus twice-daily dosing regimens. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Veterans Administration hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Ambulatory surgical patients on long-term atenolol or metoprolol. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using a propensity-score-matched cohort, DOS heart rates were compared in patients prescribed atenolol versus metoprolol. Then, once-daily and twice-daily metoprolol formulations were differentiated and DOS heart rates were compared within a general linear model. DOS heart rates in patients prescribed atenolol versus any metoprolol formulation were slower by a mean of 5.1 beats/min (66.6 v 71.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] of difference, 1.9-8.3; p = 0.002), a difference that was not observed in preoperative primary care visits. The general linear model showed that patients prescribed atenolol (typically once-daily dosing) had a mean DOS heart rate 5.6 beats/min lower compared with patients prescribed once-daily metoprolol succinate (68.9 v 74.5; 95% CI of difference, -8.6 to -2.6; p < 0.001) and 3.8 beats/min lower compared with patients prescribed twice-daily metoprolol tartrate (68.9 v 72.7; 95% CI of difference, -6.1 to -1.6; p < 0.001). DOS heart rates were similar between different formulations of metoprolol (95% CI of difference, -1.0 to +4.6; p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS:Atenolol is associated with a lower DOS heart rate versus metoprolol. The heart rate difference is specific to the day of surgery and is not explained by once-daily versus twice-daily dosing regimens.
Authors: Robert B Schonberger; Matthew M Burg; Natalie Holt; Carrie L Lukens; Feng Dai; Cynthia Brandt Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: W Scott Beattie; Duminda N Wijeysundera; Keyvan Karkouti; Stuart McCluskey; Gordon Tait Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Harm H H Feringa; Jeroen J Bax; Eric Boersma; Miklos D Kertai; Simon H Meij; Wael Galal; Olaf Schouten; Ian R Thomson; Peter Klootwijk; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Jan Klein; Don Poldermans Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-07-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Robert B Schonberger; Carrie L Lukens; O Dicle Turkoglu; Jessica L Feinleib; Kenneth L Haspel; Matthew M Burg Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2012-03-13 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Joseph L Goulet; Shawn L Fultz; David Rimland; Adeel Butt; Cynthia Gibert; Maria Rodriguez-Barradas; Kendall Bryant; Amy C Justice Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2007-12-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Rachel Lampert; Vladimir Shusterman; Matthew Burg; Craig McPherson; William Batsford; Anna Goldberg; Robert Soufer Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-03-03 Impact factor: 24.094