Article

The Role of Beta Blockade in Heart Failure

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

DOI:https://doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2005.58

Copyright Statement:

The copyright in this work belongs to Radcliffe Medical Media. Only articles clearly marked with the CC BY-NC logo are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC BY-NC option was not available for Radcliffe journals before 1 January 2019. Articles marked ‘Open Access’ but not marked ‘CC BY-NC’ are made freely accessible at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution. Permission is required for reuse of this content.

Beta-blocker therapy remains one of the most fascinating issues in heart failure (HF) clinical practice. These agents, once absolutely contraindicated in patients with HF, have been shown to have the greatest beneficial effects on the patients' prognosis. They have radically changed the clinical course of HF, more than any other agent previously introduced, and are now the cornerstone of current HF treatment.1-3 Beta-blocker therapy contradicted most of the hypotheses on which the treatment of HF was based. The long-term improvement in left ventricular (LV) function and prognosis after beta-blocker treatment definitively showed that:

  • HF is a progressive disease whose long-term clinical course may be changed; and
  • the excessive cardiac sympathetic drive, rather then abnormal haemodynamics, was the main determinant of the clinical course.4-6
Clinical Effects

Swedish authors were the first to show, in 1975, the beneficial effects of beta-blockade in HF patients.7 Further studies from the same group showed that long-term beta-blocker therapy may improve LV systolic and diastolic function and, even more importantly, may improve survival.8,9 It is impressive how this last study, including only 36 patients, could show such an effect and predict the results of trials concluded almost 20 years later (see Figure 1). Concomitant analyses of the major post-infarction trials showed that beta-blockade had its greatest effects among the patients with signs of HF or of LV dysfunction.10,11

In the following years, controlled trials showed the beneficial effects of beta-blockers on LV function and the clinical course of patients with chronic HF.12-16 Beta-blockers were more effective than angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors at reversing LV remodelling, with an improvement in LV ejection fraction (EF), a decline in LV volumes, reduced severity of mitral regurgitation and a less spherical LV shape.13-18 These changes are secondary to the beneficial effects of beta-blockade on the intrinsic mechanisms leading to progressive myocardial degeneration.5,15 They include changes in myocardial metabolism,14,15,18 myocardial contractile protein isoforms, sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium-dependent ATPase (SERCA) activity and gene expression,19 and ryanodine receptor phosphorylation.20 In turn, LV inverse remodelling by beta-blocker therapy may further contribute to the overall improvement in LV function.4

Large multicentre controlled clinical trials showed the beneficial effects of beta-blocker treatment on prognosis. All-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality, as well as all-cause, CV and worsening HF hospitalisations, were reduced by beta-blocker treatment, compared with placebo, in landmark trials (see Table 1).21-24 The effects on survival were additive to that of ACE inhibitors and were of greater magnitude compared with those previously found with them.5

The first mortality trials included patients with LV systolic dysfunction, shown by a low EF and mild to moderate HF. This was shown by the relatively low annual mortality of the placebo-treated patients (13.2% in the Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II) and 11% in Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF)).22,23 The Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) broadened the indications to beta-blocker therapy. It included patients with symptoms at rest or minimal exertion and severe LV dysfunction (EF of less than 25%). Accordingly, the mortality of the placebo treated patients was higher (18.5%). Carvedilol was associated with a significant 35% reduction in all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR), 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.81-0.52; p=0.0014) and with a 24% reduction in the combined end-point of death and hospitalisations (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67-0.87).24 Carvedilol was associated with an excellent tolerability with a similar incidence of side effects and early (two weeks after study initiation) beneficial effects on prognosis, compared with placebo.25 Carvedilol was also associated with a reduction in mortality, compared with placebo, in patients with early post-infarction LV dysfunction, with or without symptoms, in the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) trial.26

The Benefits of Anti-adrenergic Therapy

The effects of increased sympathetic drive in the failing heart are complex. Beta-adrenergic stimulation causes major changes both in the characteristics of the myocytes (foetal gene expression, abnormal calcium handling, abnormal metabolism) and in their number, with an acceleration of cell death through the mechanisms of ischaemic necrosis and apoptosis.5,18 In the short term, it also increases myocardial contractility so that in advanced HF, the heart may be critically dependent on adrenergic drive. Not all the beta-adrenergic-mediated mechanisms are deleterious. For instance, phospholamban inhibition with a secondary increase in SERCA activity may increase myocardial contractility.27

On the other hand, the pharmacological characteristics of anti-adrenergic agents may also differ. Beta-blocking agents with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity, such as xamoterol, have increased, rather than reduced, mortality in patients with HF,28 an effect related to increased sympathetic drive, mainly at night time.

Bucindolol, a non-selective beta1- and beta2-receptor blocker, has had a neutral effect on mortality in a large multicentre trial (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78-1.02; p=0.13).29 This result may be explained by the characteristics both of the patients studied (high prevalence of black patients and of patients with advanced HF) and of bucindolol itself. Bucindolol inhibition of norepinephrine release from pre-synaptic nerve endings, an effect mediated by pre-synaptic beta-2 receptor blockade, may be deleterious in patients with advanced HF and/or with other characteristics.30

Similarly, unfavourable results have been obtained with agents that inhibit pre-synaptic norepinephrine release, acting as agonists of the imidazoline receptors. Moxonidine administration to patients with HF has been associated with a dose-related increase in the mortality and hospitalisation rate.31 The Moxonidine Congestive Heart Failure (MOXCON) trial was prematurely stopped after the inclusion of 1,934 patients for an early increase in mortality and adverse events in the moxonidine SR group. The mortality rate was 5.5% in the moxonidine SR group and 3.4% in the placebo group (p=0.012). Hospitalisation for HF, acute myocardial infarction (MI) and adverse events was also more frequent in the moxonidine SR group. Plasma norepinephrine was significantly decreased by moxonidine SR (-18.8% from baseline) compared with placebo (+6.9%).32

The Clinical Importance of the Differences Between Beta-blockers

Previous studies have already showed that the pharmacological characteristics of antiadrenergic agents may influence their effects on survival. Both agents with intrinsic sympathomimetic activity and agents decreasing norepinephrine release are associated with untoward effects on survival - the first because of excessive sympathetic stimulation, the others, likely, because they blunt sympathetic response when an increase in myocardial contractility and blood pressure would be necessary, such as during exercise, stress or arrhythmias.

It remained uncertain whether there could be differences in the magnitude of the effects on mortality between beta-blockers that are both associated with favourable effects on outcome. This hypothesis was tested in the Carvedilol or Metoprolol European trial (COMET). Three thousand and twenty-nine patients with II-IV New York Heart Association (NYHA) class HF, an LV EF less than 35%, a CV hospitalisation in the previous two years and on standard treatment with diuretics and ACE inhibitors, were randomised to either carvedilol, titrated up to 25mg bid, or metoprolol tartrate, titrated to up to 50mg bid. COMET was an event-driven trial designed to end when 1,020 deaths had occurred. The average follow-up was long (57.9 months) making it one of the largest and longest trials of CHF patients.33

In COMET, carvedilol treatment was associated with a significant 17% reduction in all-cause mortality (RR, 0.83; 95% CI 0.74-0.93; p=0.0017), compared with metoprolol tartrate. The annual mortality rate was reduced from 10% to 8.3% and calculated median survival was prolonged by 1.4 years with carvedilol. The distribution of the mode of death was similar with both treatments. The reduction of sudden death rate was significant with carvedilol compared with metoprolol (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.97; p=0.022). The reduction of circulatory failure death was of similar magnitude although it did not reach statistical significance because of the lower number of events (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; p=0.07).33 Significant differences were found in other end points including those related to vascular events such as MI and stroke (see Figure 2). The other co-primary end-point of all-cause mortality and all-cause-hospitalisation was reached by 73.9% of patients on carvedilol and 76.4% on metoprolol with no difference between the two groups (HR, 0.937; 95% CI, 0.863-1.017; p=0.1219). The incidence of hospitalisations was, in fact, similar between the patients on carvedilol and those on metoprolol tartrate.33 (The explanation of this finding is that the lower mortality of the patients on carvedilol exposed them to an increased risk of hospitalisations.)

COMET supports the hypothesis that meaningful differences exist in the clinical effects of different beta-blockers in CHF. The superiority of carvedilol, compared with metoprolol tartrate, at the doses and modes of administration used in this trial, was clearly shown. Only the beta-blockers associated with favourable effects on mortality, carvedilol, bisoprolol and metoprolol succinate, and not metoprolol tartrate, should be used in the patients with HF.3 According to some authors, the results of COMET should be ascribed to methodological issues and, namely, to the administration of relatively low doses of metoprolol tartrate with less beta-1 receptor blockade.

Post-hoc analyses have shown that the differences in outcome between carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate were independent of beta-blocker doses, heart rate and blood pressure changes.34 Moreover, single centre comparison trials have shown a greater improvement from baseline in LV function with carvedilol, compared with metoprolol tartrate, even when the latter had been administered at higher doses than in COMET.35 A final answer to this issue is not possible based on the data from COMET; however, it should be noted that its results are also consistent with many specific pharmacological characteristics of carvedilol, which may be useful for the treatment of HF.5,18,36-40 These characteristics are summarised in Table 2.

Implementing Beta-blocker Treatment - Treating Co-morbidities and Disease Management Programmes

Beta-blockers now have a pivotal role in the treatment of chronic HF;1-3,5,41 however, they are still significantly underused. Recent international surveys show that these drugs are administered to only a minority of the HF patients, with percentages of 34% and of 36.9% in the IMPROVEMENT and EuroHeart surveys, respectively.42,43 The doses of the beta-blockers are also significantly lower than those used in controlled clinical trials: metoprolol, 74.9±43.3mg, daily; carvedilol, 17.6±16.6mg, daily; bisoprolol 4.7±2.6mg, daily.43

Factors associated with impaired tolerance to beta-blocker therapy are increased age, renal insufficiency, hypotension and more severe HF.44 The percentages of patients with traditional contraindications who do not tolerate beta-blockers is generally low.44 Retrospective analyses of randomised trials have shown that the efficacy and tolerability of betablocker therapy are independent of factors like sex45 and diabetes.46 Elderly patients and patients with advanced HF have a lower tolerability but may benefit from beta-blocker therapy to a similar extent as younger patients.47-49 In the recent Study of Effects of Nebivolol Intervention on Outcomes and Rehospitalisation in Seniors with heart failure (SENIORS) trial the administration of the beta-blocker nebivolol to elderly patients (more than 70 years) with chronic HF was associated with a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality or CV hospitalisations (RR, 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99; P = 0.039) with a non-significant trend to reduced mortality (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71-1.08; P = 0.21).48

The limitation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with asthma may be partially overcome by the use of beta-1 selective agents or by agents with concomitant alpha-blocking (and thus bronchodilating) activity;51 however, bradycardia and asthma remain the most important contraindications to beta-blockade.43,44,52

Recent studies have shown the importance of patients' follow-up in specialised centres. The Bring-up study was an Italian programme finalised at the implementation of beta-blocker therapy. The percentage of patients on beta-blockade increased from 24.9% to 57.6% at the end of the first year of study with 70% of the patients reaching target beta-blockers doses.52 Other modalities of implementation of beta-blocker therapy have been recently proposed. These include its early initiation during a hospitalisation for HF. A strategy of predischarge initiation of beta-blocker therapy was associated with a higher percentage of patients on beta-blockers (91.2% compared with 74.1%) with higher maintenance doses and without any difference in the incidence of side effects.53,54

It is now essential to extend beta-blocker therapy to the largest number of patients with HF, including the elderly and the patients with comorbidities. To achieve this, it is important that disease management systems which could allow the initiation and uptitration of treatment be established.

Conclusions

To date, beta-blockers are the most effective agents to improve LV function and prognosis of the patients with chronic HF. These drugs act on the intrinsic mechanisms causing LV dysfunction - thus their effects emerge slowly though they are then maintained, and even enhanced, in the long-term. Bisoprolol, carvedilol and metoprolol succinate have all been associated with a reduction in mortality and hospitalisations, compared with placebo. Nebivolol has also improved the outcome in elderly patients with chronic HF. As important differences exist between different beta-blockers, only the agents shown to be effective in randomised trials should be administered. The administration of beta-blocker therapy to the largest number of patients and their titration up to the target doses shown to be effective should be primary aims in the treatment of patients with HF.

References

  1. Hunt S A, Baker D W, Chin M H et al., American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for the evaluation and management of chronic heart failure in the adult: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. (Committee to Revise the 1995 Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Heart Failure) (2001), American College of Cardiology Web site. Available at: www.acc.org/clinical/guidelines/failure/hf_index.htm
  2. Remme W J, Swedberg K, Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure, European Society of Cardiology, Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure, Eur. Heart J. (2001);22: pp. 1,527-1,560.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Metra M, Nodari S, Dei Cas L, Current guidelines in the pharmacological management of heart failure, J. Renin. Angiotensin Aldosterone Sys. 2004;5(suppl 1): S11-S16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Mann D L, Mechanisms and models in heart failure: A combinatorial approach, Circulation (1999);100: pp. 99-1,088.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Bristow M R, Beta-adrenergic receptor blockade in chronic heart failure, Circulation (2000);101: pp. 558-569.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Swedberg K, Importance of neuroendocrine activation in chronic heart failure. Impact on treatment strategies, Eur. J. Heart Fail. (2000);2: pp. 229-233.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Waagstein F, Hjalmarson A, Varnauskas E, Wallentin I, Effect of chronic beta-adrenergic receptor blockade in congestive cardiomyopathy, Br. Heart J. (1975);37: pp. 1,022-1,036.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Swedberg K, Hjalmarson A, Waagstein F, Wallentin I, Beneficial effects of long-term beta-blockade in congestive cardiomyopathy, Br. Heart J. (1980);44: pp. 117-133.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Swedberg K, Hjalmarson A, Waagstein F, Wallentin I, Prolongation of survival in congestive cardiomyopathy by beta-receptor blockade, Lancet (1979);1: pp. 1,374-1,376.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Norwegian Multicentre Group, Timolol induced reduction in mortality and reinfarction in patients surviving acute myocardial infarction, N. Engl. J. Med. (1981);304: pp. 801-807.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Chadda K, Goldstein S, Byington R, Curb J D, Effect of propranolol after acute myocardial infarction in patients with congestive heart failure, Circulation (1986);73: pp. 503-510.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Waagstein F, Bristow M R, Swedberg K et al., Beneficial effects of metoprolol in idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Metoprolol in Dilated Cardiomyopathy (MDC) Trial Study Group, Lancet (1993);342: pp. 1,441-1,446.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Metra M, Nardi M, Giubbini R, Dei Cas L, Effects of short- and long-term carvedilol administration on rest and exercise hemodynamic variables, exercise capacity and clinical conditions in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. (1994);24: pp. 1,678-1,687.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Hall S A, Cigarroa C G, Marcoux L, Risser R C, Grayburn P A, Eichhorn E J, Time course of improvement in left ventricular function, mass and geometry in patients with congestive heart failure treated with beta-adrenergic blockade, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. (1995);25: pp. 1,154-1,161.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Eichhorn E J, Bristow M R, Medical therapy can improve the biological properties of the chronically failing heart. A new era in the treatment of heart failure, Circulation (1996);94: pp. 2,285-2,296.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Lechat P, Packer M, Chalon S, Cucherat M, Arab T, Boissel J P, Clinical effects of beta-adrenergic blockade in chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials, Circulation (1998);98: pp. 1,184-1,191.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Lowes B D, Gill E A, Abraham W T et al., Effects of carvedilol on left ventricular mass, chamber geometry, and mitral regurgitation in chronic heart failure, Am. J. Cardiol. (1999);83: pp. 1,201-1,205.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Metra M, Nodari S, D'Aloia A, Bontempi L, Boldi E, Cas L D, A rationale for the use of beta-blockers as standard treatment for heart failure, Am. Heart J. (2000);139: pp. 511-521.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Lowes B D, Gilbert E M, Abraham W T et al., Myocardial gene expression in dilated cardiomyopathy treated with betablocking agents, N. Engl. J. Med. (2002);346: pp. 1,357-1,365.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Reiken S, Wehrens X H, Vest J A et al., Beta-blockers restore calcium release channel function and improve cardiac muscle performance in human heart failure, Circulation (2003);107: pp. 2,459-2,466.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Packer M, Bristow M R, Cohn J N et al., The effect of carvedilol on morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic heart failure, New Engl. J. Med. (1996);334: pp. 1,349-1,355.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. CIBIS-II Investigators and Committees, The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial, Lancet (1999);353: pp. 9-13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. MERIT-HF Study Group, Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL Randomised Intervention Trial in Congestive Heart Failure (MERIT-HF), Lancet (1999);353: pp. 2,001-2,007.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Packer M, Coats A J, Fowler M B et al., Effect of carvedilol on survival in severe chronic heart failure, N. Engl. J. Med. (2001);344: pp. 1,651-1,658.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Krum H, Roecker E B, Mohacsi P et al., Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study Group. Effects of initiating carvedilol in patients with severe chronic heart failure: results from the COPERNICUS Study, JAMA (February 12 2003);289(6): pp. 712-718.
    Crossref
  26. Dargie H J, Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left-ventricular dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomised trial, Lancet (2001);357: pp. 1,385-1,390.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Bristow M, Of phospholamban, mice, and humans with heart failure, Circulation (2001);103: pp. 787-788.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. The Xamoterol in Severe Heart Failure Study Group, Xamoterol in severe heart failure, Lancet (1990);336: pp. 1-6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial Investigators, A trial of the beta-blocker bucindolol in patients with advanced chronic heart failure, N. Engl. J. Med. (2001);344: pp. 1,659-1,667.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Bristow M R, Krause-Steinrauf H et al., Effect of baseline or changes in adrenergic activity on clinical outcomes in the betablocker evaluation of survival trial, Circulation (2004);110: pp. 1,437-1,442.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Swedberg K, Bristow M R, Cohn J N et al., Effects of sustained-release moxonidine, an imidazoline agonist, on plasma norepinephrine in patients with chronic heart failure, Circulation (2002);105: pp. 1,797-1,803.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Cohn J N, Pfeffer M A, Rouleau J et al., Adverse mortality effect of central sympathetic inhibition with sustained-release moxonidine in patients with heart failure (MOXCON), Eur. J. Heart Fail. (October 2003);5(5): pp. 659-667.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Poole-Wilson P A, Swedberg K, Cleland J G et al., Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised controlled trial, Lancet (2003);362: pp. 7-13.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Metra M, Torp-Pedersen C, Swedberg K et al., Role of heart rate, systolic blood pressure and beta-blocker dose in the COMET study: prognostic value but lack of interaction with the effects of carvedilol compared to metoprolol, Eur. Heart J. (2004);25 (abstract supplement): p. 486.
  35. Metra M, Giubbini R, Nodari S, Boldi E, Modena M G, Dei Cas L, Differential effects of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure: A prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison of the long-term effects of metoprolol versus carvedilol, Circulation (2000);102: pp. 546-551.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Metra M, Dei Cas L, DiLenarda A, Poole-Wilson P, Beta-blockers in heart failure: are pharmacological differences clinically important?, Heart Fail Rev. (2004);9: pp. 123-130.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Packer M, Do ├ş-blockers prolong survival in heart failure only by inhibiting the ├ş1-receptor? A perspective on the results of the COMET trial, J. Cardiac Fail. (2003);9: pp. 429-443.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Ohlstein E H, Arleth A J, Storer B et al., Carvedilol inhibits endothelin-1 biosynthesis in cultured human coronary artery endothelial cells, J. Mol. Cell Cardiol. (1998);30: pp. 167-173.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Kindermann M, Maack C, Schaller S et al., Carvedilol but not metoprolol reduces beta-adrenergic responsiveness after complete elimination from plasma in vivo, Circulation (2004);109: pp. 3,182-3,190.
    Crossref
  40. Gong H, Sung H, Koch W J et al., Specific Beta-2AR Blocker ICI 118,551 actively decreases contraction through a Gicoupled form of the Beta-2AR in myocytes from failing human heart, Circulation (2002);105: pp. 2,497-2,503.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Tendera M, Ochala A, Overview of the results of recent beta blocker trials, Curr. Opin. Cardiol. (2001);16: pp. 180-185.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Cleland J G, Cohen-Solal A, Aguilar J C et al., Management of heart failure in primary care (the IMPROVEMENT of heart failure programme): An international survey, Lancet (2002);360: pp. 1,631-1,639.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. The Study Group of Diagnosis of the Working Group on Heart Failure Of The European Society of Cardiology, The EuroHeart Failure Survey programme - a survey on the quality of care among patients with heart failure in Europe, Eur. Heart J. (2003);24: pp. 464-474.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Krum H, Ninio D, MacDonald P, Baseline predictors of tolerability to carvedilol in patients with chronic heart failure, Heart (2000);84: pp. 615-619.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Ghali J K, Sex-related differences in heart failure and beta-blockers, Heart Fail. Rev. (2004);9: pp. 149-159.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Nodari S, Metra M, Dei Cas A, Dei Cas L, Efficacy and tolerability of the long-term administration of carvedilol in patients with chronic heart failure with and without concomitant diabetes mellitus, Eur. J. Heart Fail. (2003);5: pp. 803-809.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. McMurray J, Cohen-Solal A, Dietz R et al., Practical recommendations for the use of ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers and spironolactone in heart failure: putting guidelines into practice, Eur. J. Heart Fail. (2001);3: pp. 495-502.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Dulin B R, Haas S J, Abraham W T, Krum H, Do elderly systolic heart failure patients benefit from beta blockers to the same extent as the non-elderly? Meta-analysis of >12,000 patients in large-scale clinical trials, Am. J. Cardiol. (2005);95: pp. 896-898.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Sin D D, McAlister F A, The effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality in a population-based cohort of 11,942 elderly patients with heart failure, Am. J. Med. (2002);113: pp. 650-656.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Flather M D, Shibata M C, Coats A J et al., Randomized trial to determine the effect of nebivolol on mortality and cardiovascular hospital admission in elderly patients with heart failure (SENIORS)', Eur. Heart J. (2005);26: pp. 215-225.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Sirak T E, Jelic S, Le Jemtel T H, Therapeutic update: non-selective beta- and alpha-adrenergic blockade in patients with coexistent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic heart failure, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. (2004);44: pp. 497-502.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Maggioni A P, Sinagra G, Opasich C et al., Treatment of chronic heart failure with beta adrenergic blockade beyond controlled clinical trias: tre BRING-UP experience, Heart (2003);89: pp. 299-305.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Gattis W A, O'Connor C M, Gallup D S et al., Predischarge initiation of carvedilol in patients hospitalized for decompensated heart failure (IMPACT-HF trial), J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. (2004);43: pp. 1,534-1,541.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Ansari M, Shlipak M G, Heidenreich P A et al., Improving guideline adherence. A randomized trial evaluating strategies to increase beta-blocker use in heart failure, Circulation (2003);107: pp. 2,799-2,804.
    Crossref | PubMed
Previous Volume Article Next Volume Article