Si Xiang, Yuan Hao, Shi Rui, Song Wenliang, Guo Jiayan, Jiang Jinlong, Yang Tao, Ma Xiaoxun, Wang Huiming, Chen Minying, Wu Jianfeng, Guan Xiangdong, Monnet Xavier
Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
Service de Médecine Intensive-Réanimation, Hôpital de Bicêtre, DMU CORREVE, Inserm UMR S_999, FHU SEPSIS, Groupe de Recherche Clinique CARMAS, Université Paris-Saclay, AP-HP, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France.
Ann Intensive Care. 2025 Jan 12;15(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13613-024-01418-8.
Excessive tachycardia is associated with impaired hemodynamics and worse outcome in critically ill patients. Previous studies suggested beneficial effect of β-blockers administration in ICU patients, including those with septic shock. However, comparisons in ICU settings are lacking. Our study aims to compare Landiolol and Esmolol regarding heart rate control and hemodynamic variables in general ICU patients.
This retrospective, observational study was conducted in a 56-bed ICU at a university hospital. A propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to balance baseline differences. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to compare heart rate between two drugs. The primary outcome was heart rate control, while secondary outcomes included hemodynamic response, hospital length of stay (HLOS) and ICU length of stay (ICULOS).
From June 2016 to December 2022, 438 patients were included after PSM, (292 in the Esmolol group and 146 the in Landiolol group). Baseline heart rate was similar between groups (Landiolol:120.0 [110.2, 131.0] bpm vs. Esmolol:120.0 [111.0, 129.0] bpm, p = 0.925). During 72 h. of β-blocker infusion, Landiolol reduced heart rate by 4.7 (1.3, 8.1) bpm, more than Esmolol (p = 0.007), while preserving a comparable proportion of patients able to stabilize vasopressor doses within the first 24 h. (82.9 vs. 80.8%, respectively, p = 0.596). Norepinephrine doses and lactate levels were similar between groups over 72 h., while the Landiolol group exhibited notably higher minimal ScvO levels (72% [63%, 78%] vs 68% [55%, 73%], respectively, p = 0.006) and a lower maximal PCO2 gap compared to the Esmolol group (7.0 [6.0, 9.0] vs. 8.0 [6.0, 10.0] mmHg, respectively, p = 0.040). Patients in the Landiolol group were observed to experience shorter HLOS than patients in the Esmolol group (26.5 [13.0, 42.0] vs 30.0 [17.0, 47.2] days, respectively, p = 0.044) and ICULOS (4.9 [2.8, 10.0] vs.6.7 [3.4, 13.1] days, respectively, p = 0.011).
Landiolol provides superior heart rate control in critically ill patients with tachycardia compared to Esmolol, without increasing vasopressor requirements during the first 24 h. Findings from ScvO levels and PCO gap suggest that Landiolol may exert less impact on cardiac output than Esmolol. Further studies, incorporating comprehensive hemodynamic monitoring, are warranted to clarify the clinical implications of heart rate control with β-blockers in ICU patients with tachycardia.
在危重症患者中,过速的心动过速与血流动力学受损及更差的预后相关。既往研究提示,在包括感染性休克患者在内的重症监护病房(ICU)患者中,使用β受体阻滞剂有益。然而,在ICU环境下的比较研究尚缺乏。我们的研究旨在比较在普通ICU患者中,兰地洛尔和艾司洛尔在控制心率及血流动力学变量方面的效果。
本回顾性观察性研究在一所大学医院的56张床位的ICU中进行。采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)来平衡基线差异。使用广义估计方程(GEE)比较两种药物之间的心率。主要结局是心率控制,次要结局包括血流动力学反应、住院时间(HLOS)和ICU住院时间(ICULOS)。
从2016年6月至2022年12月,438例患者经PSM后纳入研究(艾司洛尔组292例,兰地洛尔组146例)。两组间基线心率相似(兰地洛尔组:120.0[110.2,131.0]次/分钟,艾司洛尔组:120.0[111.0,129.0]次/分钟,p = 0.925)。在β受体阻滞剂输注的72小时内,兰地洛尔使心率降低4.7(1.3,8.1)次/分钟,比艾司洛尔降低更多(p = 0.007),同时在前24小时内能够稳定血管升压药剂量的患者比例相当(分别为82.9%和80.8%,p = 0.596)。在72小时内,两组间去甲肾上腺素剂量和乳酸水平相似,而兰地洛尔组的最低中心静脉血氧饱和度(ScvO)水平显著更高(分别为72%[63%,78%]和68%[55%,73%],p = 0.006),与艾司洛尔组相比,最大二氧化碳分压差值更低(分别为7.0[6.0,9.0]mmHg和8.0[6.0,10.0]mmHg,p = 0.040)。观察到兰地洛尔组患者的HLOS比艾司洛尔组患者短(分别为26.5[13.