Jun Seung Jin, Kim Kyung Hwan, Jeong Myung Ho, Kim Min Chul, Sim Doo Sun, Hong Young Joon, Kim Ju Han, Cho Myeong Chan, Chae Jei Keon, Park Hun Sik, Park Jong Sun, Ahn Young Keun
Department of Cardiology, Gunsan Medical Center, Gunsan, Korea.
Department of Cardiology, Cheomdan Medical Center, Gwangju, Korea.
Chonnam Med J. 2018 May;54(2):121-128. doi: 10.4068/cmj.2018.54.2.121. Epub 2018 May 25.
Although the benefits of carvedilol have been demonstrated in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), very few studies have evaluated the efficacy of bisoprolol in the secondary prevention of acute myocardial infarction (MI) in patients treated with PCI. We hypothesized that the effect of bisoprolol would not be different from carvedilol in post-MI patients. A total of 13,813 patients who underwent PCI were treated either with carvedilol or bisoprolol at the time of discharge. They were enrolled from the Korean Acute MI Registry (KAMIR). After 1:2 propensity score matching, 1,806 patients were enrolled in the bisoprolol group and 3,612 patients in the carvedilol group. The primary end point was the composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), which was defined as cardiac death, nonfatal MI, target vessel revascularization, and coronary artery bypass surgery. The secondary end point was defined as all-cause mortality, cardiac death, nonfatal MI, any revascularization, or target vessel revascularization. After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics by propensity score matching, the MACE-free survival rate was not different between the groups (HR=0.815, 95% CI:0.614-1.081, p=0.156). In the subgroup analysis, the cumulative incidence of MACEs was lower in the bisoprolol group in patients having a Killip class of III or IV than in the carvedilol group (HR=0.512, 95% CI: 0.263-0.998, p=0.049). The incidence of secondary end points was similar between the two beta-blocker groups. In conclusion, the benefits of bisoprolol were comparable with those of carvedilol in the secondary prevention of acute MI.
尽管在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)时代已证实卡维地洛的益处,但很少有研究评估比索洛尔在接受PCI治疗的急性心肌梗死(MI)患者二级预防中的疗效。我们假设比索洛尔对心肌梗死后患者的影响与卡维地洛无异。共有13813例接受PCI治疗的患者在出院时接受了卡维地洛或比索洛尔治疗。他们来自韩国急性心肌梗死注册研究(KAMIR)。经过1:2倾向评分匹配后,比索洛尔组纳入1806例患者,卡维地洛组纳入3612例患者。主要终点是主要不良心脏事件(MACE)的复合终点,定义为心源性死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、靶血管血运重建和冠状动脉旁路移植术。次要终点定义为全因死亡率、心源性死亡、非致死性心肌梗死、任何血运重建或靶血管血运重建。通过倾向评分匹配调整基线特征差异后,两组间无MACE生存率无差异(HR=0.815,95%CI:0.614 - 1.081,p=0.156)。在亚组分析中,Killip分级为III或IV级的患者中,比索洛尔组MACE的累积发生率低于卡维地洛组(HR=0.512,95%CI:0.263 - 0.998,p=0.049)。两个β受体阻滞剂组次要终点的发生率相似。总之,在急性心肌梗死的二级预防中,比索洛尔的益处与卡维地洛相当。