BACKGROUND: The protective effect of beta-blockers in patients with inherited Long-QT syndrome is well established. Recent reports have suggested that beta-blockers are not equally effective in Long-QT (LQT). Bisoprolol is an attractive candidate for use in LQT because of its cardioselective properties and favorable side-effect profile. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 114 consecutive patients with gene-positive Long-QT syndrome type 1 (LQT1) or Long-QT syndrome type 2 (LQT2) treated with bisoprolol, nadolol or atenolol with a total of 580 person-years of follow-up. Electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters and cardiac events during follow-up were compared. In addition, exercise treadmill testing was performed in bisoprolol-treated patients. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were treated with bisoprolol, 39 with atenolol and 16 with nadolol. Overall, 59 % were females and 62 % had LQT1. Baseline heart rate and corrected QT (QTc) interval were similar between the groups. QTc shortening was observed in individuals on bisoprolol (ΔQTc -5 ± 31 ms; p = 0.049) and nadolol (ΔQTc -13 ± 16 ms; p = 0.02) but not on atenolol (ΔQTc +9 ± 24 ms; p = 0.16). Median follow-up was similar for bisoprolol and nadolol (3 years), but longer for atenolol (6 years; p = 0.03); one cardiac event occurred in the bisoprolol group (1.7 %) and two events occurred in the atenolol group (5.1 %; p = 0.45), whereas none occurred in nadolol-treated patients. Beta-blocker efficacy was not affected by the underlying genotype. The antiadrenergic effect of bisoprolol correlated with the reduction of peak heart rates at exercise testing. CONCLUSIONS: Bisoprolol treatment results in QTc shortening in gene-positive LQT1 and LQT2 patients and is well tolerated during long-term administration. The equivalence of bisoprolol for protection from ventricular arrhythmia in LQT patients compared to established beta-blockers remains unknown. Further large-scale studies are required.
BACKGROUND: The protective effect of beta-blockers in patients with inherited Long-QT syndrome is well established. Recent reports have suggested that beta-blockers are not equally effective in Long-QT (LQT). Bisoprolol is an attractive candidate for use in LQT because of its cardioselective properties and favorable side-effect profile. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 114 consecutive patients with gene-positive Long-QT syndrome type 1 (LQT1) or Long-QT syndrome type 2 (LQT2) treated with bisoprolol, nadolol or atenolol with a total of 580 person-years of follow-up. Electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters and cardiac events during follow-up were compared. In addition, exercise treadmill testing was performed in bisoprolol-treated patients. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were treated with bisoprolol, 39 with atenolol and 16 with nadolol. Overall, 59 % were females and 62 % had LQT1. Baseline heart rate and corrected QT (QTc) interval were similar between the groups. QTc shortening was observed in individuals on bisoprolol (ΔQTc -5 ± 31 ms; p = 0.049) and nadolol (ΔQTc -13 ± 16 ms; p = 0.02) but not on atenolol (ΔQTc +9 ± 24 ms; p = 0.16). Median follow-up was similar for bisoprolol and nadolol (3 years), but longer for atenolol (6 years; p = 0.03); one cardiac event occurred in the bisoprolol group (1.7 %) and two events occurred in the atenolol group (5.1 %; p = 0.45), whereas none occurred in nadolol-treated patients. Beta-blocker efficacy was not affected by the underlying genotype. The antiadrenergic effect of bisoprolol correlated with the reduction of peak heart rates at exercise testing. CONCLUSIONS:Bisoprolol treatment results in QTc shortening in gene-positive LQT1 and LQT2patients and is well tolerated during long-term administration. The equivalence of bisoprolol for protection from ventricular arrhythmia in LQT patients compared to established beta-blockers remains unknown. Further large-scale studies are required.
Authors: Silvia G Priori; Arthur A Wilde; Minoru Horie; Yongkeun Cho; Elijah R Behr; Charles Berul; Nico Blom; Josep Brugada; Chern-En Chiang; Heikki Huikuri; Prince Kannankeril; Andrew Krahn; Antoine Leenhardt; Arthur Moss; Peter J Schwartz; Wataru Shimizu; Gordon Tomaselli; Cynthia Tracy Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Jose M Moltedo; Jeffrey J Kim; Richard A Friedman; Naomi J Kertesz; Bryan C Cannon Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Ilan Goldenberg; James Bradley; Arthur Moss; Scott McNitt; Slava Polonsky; Jennifer L Robinson; Mark Andrews; Wojciech Zareba Journal: J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Date: 2010-03-05
Authors: Matti Viitasalo; Lasse Oikarinen; Heikki Swan; Heikki Väänänen; Jere Järvenpää; Harri Hietanen; Jouko Karjalainen; Lauri Toivonen Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-07-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jorge A Wong; Lorne J Gula; George J Klein; Raymond Yee; Allan C Skanes; Andrew D Krahn Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2010-01-09
Authors: G Michael Vincent; Peter J Schwartz; Isabelle Denjoy; Heikki Swan; Candice Bithell; Carla Spazzolini; Lia Crotti; Kirsi Piippo; Jean-Marc Lupoglazoff; Elizabeth Villain; Silvia G Priori; Carlo Napolitano; Li Zhang Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lee L Eckhardt; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Michael J Ackerman; Peter F Aziz; Elijah R Behr; Marina Cerrone; Mina K Chung; Michael J Cutler; Susan P Etheridge; Andrew D Krahn; Steven A Lubitz; Marco V Perez; Silvia G Priori; Jason D Roberts; Dan M Roden; Eric Schulze-Bahr; Peter J Schwartz; Wataru Shimizu; M Benjamin Shoemaker; Raymond W Sy; Jeffrey A Towbin; Sami Viskin; Arthur A M Wilde; Wojciech Zareba Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2021-07-09