pathology | treatment | patient | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
---|
acute myocardial infarction | acebutolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Azancot, 1982 | Acebutolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] | APSI, 1990 | Acebutolol vs placebo | all cause death 0.52 [0.30; 0.91] cardiovascular death 0.41 [0.22; 0.79] | | fatal and nonfatal MI 0.85 [0.36; 2.02] Sudden death 0.69 [0.25; 1.92] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Azancot, 1982 | Acebutolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=14) vs. control (n=12) | patients seen within 24 hours after the onset of uncomplicated anterior transmural myocardial infarction | open Parallel groups Sample size: 14/12 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 month | APSI, 1990 | Acebutolol 200mg twice daily (n=298) vs. placebo (n=309) | patient surviving MI at hight risk | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 298/309 Primary endpoint: death FU duration: 318 days |
|
acute myocardial infarction | alprenolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Andersen , 1979 | Alprenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.97 [0.72; 1.31] | Wilhelmsson , 1974 | Alprenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.51 [0.21; 1.21] reinfarction 0.90 [0.49; 1.68] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Andersen , 1979 | Alprenolol 5-10 mg intravenously, followed by 200 mg twice a day (n=238) vs. placebo (n=242) | patients years with definite or suspected myocardial infarction the 2 stratum <65 et >65 years are grouped together | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 238/242 Primary endpoint: NA FU duration: About 1 year | Wilhelmsson , 1974 | Alprenolol 200mg twice daily (n=114) vs. placebo (n=116) | patient aged 57-67 years discharge alive after acute myocardial infarction | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 114/116 Primary endpoint: NA (sudden cardiac death may be) FU duration: 2 years |
|
acute myocardial infarction | atenolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ISIS1 Collaborative Group , 1986 | Atenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.95 [0.88; 1.03] | Van de Werf , 1993 | Atenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.24 [0.03; 2.06] | Yusuf , 1980 | Atenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.78 [0.52; 1.17] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ISIS1 Collaborative Group , 1986 | Atenolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=8037) vs. control (n=7990) | patients within 5 h the onset of suspected acute myocardial infarction | No Sample size: 8037/7990 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 year | Van de Werf , 1993 | Atenolol (n=100) vs. (n=94) | |
Double Sample size: 100/94 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1014 days | Yusuf , 1980 | Atenolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=244) vs. (n=233) | |
No Sample size: 244/233 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1-4y |
|
acute myocardial infarction | betaxolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Yang , 1987 | Betaxolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Yang , 1987 | Betaxolol (n=16) vs. (n=15) | |
Double Sample size: 16/15 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 14 days |
|
acute myocardial infarction | carvedilol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Basu , 1997 | Carvedilol vs placebo | cardiac event (fatal and non fatal ) 0.55 [0.34; 0.89] | | cardiovascular death 0.63 [0.11; 3.67] fatal and nonfatal MI 0.52 [0.20; 1.32] cardiac death 0.64 [0.11; 3.73] reinfarction 0.47 [0.15; 1.50] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Basu , 1997 | Carvedilol target dose 25 mg BID (n=77) vs. placebo (n=74) | Patients with acute MI <24h Patients were subsequently withdrawn if the cardiac enzymes failed to show the typical pattern of acute myocardial necrosis¬ | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 77/74 Primary endpoint: cardiovascular event FU duration: 6 months |
|
acute myocardial infarction | labetalol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Heber , 1987 | Labetalol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.71 [0.71; 4.14] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Heber , 1987 | Labetalol (initial dose intravenously) (n=83) vs. control (n=83) | patients with suspected myocardial infarction | No Sample size: 83/83 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 year |
|
acute myocardial infarction | metoprolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 9 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
MIAMI Trial Research Group , 1985 | vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.87 [0.69; 1.11] | Von Essen , 1982 | vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.04 [0.07; 15.74] | Waagstein , 1975 | Practololormetoprolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] | TIMI IIB, 1989 | vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.00 [0.51; 1.94] | Hjalmarson , 1981 | Metoprolol vs placebo | all cause death 0.64 [0.44; 0.95] reinfarction 0.65 [0.43; 0.98] | | | LIT Research Group , 1987 | Metoprolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.93 [0.70; 1.23] cardiovascular death 0.93 [0.69; 1.26] Sudden death 0.85 [0.48; 1.49] cardiac death 0.98 [0.72; 1.32] | Manger Cats , 1983 | Metoprolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.58 [0.26; 1.28] | Rehnqvist , 1983 | Metoprolol vs placebo | reinfarction 0.55 [0.32; 0.95] | | all cause death 0.77 [0.48; 1.24] | Salathia , 1985 | Metoprolol vs placebo | Sudden death 0.41 [0.18; 0.93] | | all cause death 0.79 [0.55; 1.13] cardiac death 0.84 [0.57; 1.25] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
MIAMI Trial Research Group , 1985 | Metoprolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=2877) vs. (n=2901) | |
Double Sample size: 2877/2901 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 15 days | Von Essen , 1982 | Metoprolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=25) vs. (n=26) | |
Double Sample size: 25/26 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 14 days | Waagstein , 1975 | Practolol, (initial dose intravenously) H87/07, or metoprolol (n=38) vs. (n=45) | |
Double Sample size: 38/45 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 week | TIMI IIB, 1989 | Metoprolol (initial dose intravenously) (15 mg) (n=696) vs. (n=694) | |
No Sample size: 696/694 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 5 days | Hjalmarson , 1981 | Metoprolol 100mg twice daily (initial dose intravenously) (n=698) vs. placebo (n=697) | patients aged between 40 -74 years with suspected MI and onset of infarction within the previous 48h | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 698/697 Primary endpoint: all cause death FU duration: 2 years | LIT Research Group , 1987 | Metoprolol 100 mg bid (n=1195) vs. placebo (n=1200) treatment continued for up to 1 year | patients, 45 to 74 yearsof age, surviving a recent acute MI | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1195/1200 Primary endpoint: all-cause mortality FU duration: 18 months | Manger Cats , 1983 | Metoprolol 100mg twice daily (n=273) vs. placebo (n=280) | MI, NYHA Class I or II and <=70 y | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 273/280 Primary endpoint: NA FU duration: 1 year | Rehnqvist , 1983 | Metoprolol 100mg twice daily (n=154) vs. placebo (n=147) | AMI patients <70 years in sinus rythm without complete BBB | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 154/147 Primary endpoint: NA FU duration: 36 months | Salathia , 1985 | Metoprolol 100 mg twice daily for one year (initial dose intravenously) (n=416) vs. placebo (n=384) | patients with acute myocardial infarction | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 416/384 Primary endpoint: NA FU duration: 1 year |
|
acute myocardial infarction | oxprenolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 7 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CPRG , 1981 | Oxprenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.38 [0.47; 4.03] | Fuccella , 1968 | Oxprenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.79 [0.82; 3.92] | Lombardo , 1979 | Oxprenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.69 [0.29; 1.67] | Wilcox , 1980 | Oxprenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.41 [0.65; 3.08] | EIS , 1984 | Oxprenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.30 [0.89; 1.91] cardiovascular death 1.31 [0.88; 1.96] Sudden death 1.07 [0.62; 1.86] cardiac death 1.67 [0.90; 3.10] | Schwartz (high risk and low risk) , 1992 | Oxprenolol vs placebo | all cause death 0.48 [0.27; 0.83] cardiovascular death 0.40 [0.22; 0.74] fatal and nonfatal MI 0.47 [0.27; 0.79] | | reinfarction 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | Taylor , 1982 | Oxprenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.93 [0.65; 1.34] fatal and nonfatal MI 0.87 [0.69; 1.10] reinfarction 0.86 [0.62; 1.20] cardiac event (fatal and non fatal ) 0.87 [0.69; 1.10] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CPRG , 1981 | Oxprenolol (n=177) vs. (n=136) | |
Double Sample size: 177/136 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 8 weeks | Fuccella , 1968 | Oxprenolol (n=106) vs. (n=114) | |
Unclear Sample size: 106/114 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 21 days | Lombardo , 1979 | Oxprenolol (n=133) vs. (n=127) | |
Double Sample size: 133/127 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 20 days | Wilcox , 1980 | Oxprenolol (n=157) vs. (n=158) | |
Double Sample size: 157/158 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 6 weeks | EIS , 1984 | Oxprenolol slow release 160 mg b.i.d. (n=858) vs. placebo (n=883) | patients 35 to 69 years whohas survived acute myocardial infarction | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 858/883 Primary endpoint: NA FU duration: 1 year | Schwartz (high risk and low risk) , 1992 | Oxprenolol 160mg daily (n=485) vs. placebo (n=488) | patients surviving MI with or without complication by either ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 485/488 Primary endpoint: sudden death FU duration: 22 months (at least 6mo) | Taylor , 1982 | Oxprenolol 40mg twice daily (n=632) vs. placebo (n=471) | Men 35 to 65 years old who had an acute myocardial infarction between 1 and 90 months reviously | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 632/471 Primary endpoint: cardiac event FU duration: 48 months |
|
acute myocardial infarction | pindolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Owensby , 1984 | Pindolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.00 [0.06; 15.55] | Australian and Swedish study, 1983 | Pindolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.97 [0.67; 1.40] Sudden death 0.91 [0.56; 1.48] cardiac death 0.94 [0.63; 1.40] reinfarction 0.93 [0.43; 2.01] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Owensby , 1984 | Pindolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=50) vs. (n=50) | |
No Sample size: 50/50 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3 days | Australian and Swedish study, 1983 | Pindolol 15 mg daily (n=263) vs. placebo (n=266) | patients who had electrical and/or mechanical complications after an acute myocardial infarction | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 263/266 Primary endpoint: Death FU duration: 2 years |
|
acute myocardial infarction | practolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 6 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Evemy , 1978 | Practolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.57 [0.60; 4.05] | Johansson , 1980 | Practolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.16 [0.47; 2.86] | Macleod , 1980 | Practolol vs placebo | | | all cause death ∞ [NaN; ∞] | Snow , 1980 | Practolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.12 [0.62; 2.02] | Thompson , 1979 | Practolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.82 [0.26; 2.57] | Multicentre international , 1975 | Practolol vs placebo | Sudden death 0.57 [0.36; 0.91] cardiac death 0.75 [0.57; 0.99] | | all cause death 0.80 [0.62; 1.02] reinfarction 0.77 [0.57; 1.04] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Evemy , 1978 | Practolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=46) vs. (n=48) | |
No Sample size: 46/48 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 7 months | Johansson , 1980 | Practolol (initial dose intravenously) then atenolol (n=25) vs. (n=29) | |
Single Sample size: 25/29 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 6 months | Macleod , 1980 | Practolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=26) vs. (n=26) | |
Unclear Sample size: 26/26 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 week | Snow , 1980 | Practolol (n=76) vs. (n=67) | |
Unclear Sample size: 76/67 Primary endpoint: FU duration: Short term | Thompson , 1979 | Practolol (n=72) vs. (n=71) | |
Double Sample size: 72/71 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 year | Multicentre international , 1975 | Practolol 200mg twice daily (n=1533) vs. placebo (n=1520) | patients recovering from acute myocardial infarction | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1533/1520 Primary endpoint: death, reinfarction FU duration: 12 months, up to 24 months |
|
acute myocardial infarction | propranolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy Propranolol inferior to placebo in terms of fatal and nonfatal MI in Hansteen , 1982 | 26 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Balcon , 1966 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.97 [0.52; 1.81] | Barber , 1976 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.75 [0.36; 1.58] | Clausen , 1966 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.92 [0.53; 1.58] | Curtis , 1991 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] | Dotremont , 1968 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.80 [0.23; 2.74] | Gupta , 1982 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | Gupta , 1984 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] | Hutton , 1979 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] | Kahler , 1968 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.41 [0.11; 1.50] | Ledwich , 1968 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.67 [0.12; 3.78] | Mueller , 1980 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 2.00 [0.19; 21.06] | Multicentre , 1966 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.19 [0.59; 2.40] | Nigam , 1983 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] | Norris , 1968 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.30 [0.79; 2.15] | Norris , 1978 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] | Norris , 1984 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.09 [0.53; 2.23] | Peter , 1978 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.51 [0.05; 5.44] | Pitt , 1976 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] | Roberts , 1984 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.21 [0.70; 2.08] | Singh , 1985 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] | Sloman , 1967 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.66 [0.17; 2.66] | Aronow , 1997 | Propranolol vs control | all cause death 0.73 [0.58; 0.93] cardiac death 0.71 [0.55; 0.93] cardiac event (fatal and non fatal ) 0.72 [0.59; 0.89] | | reinfarction 0.60 [0.15; 2.43] | Baber , 1980 | Propranolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.07 [0.64; 1.77] fatal and nonfatal MI 1.03 [0.51; 2.07] cardiac death 0.62 [0.33; 1.15] reinfarction 1.03 [0.51; 2.07] | BHAT , 1982 | Propranolol vs placebo | all cause death 0.74 [0.60; 0.91] cardiovascular death 0.74 [0.60; 0.93] cardiac death 0.73 [0.58; 0.91] | | reinfarction 0.85 [0.66; 1.10] | Hansteen , 1982 | Propranolol vs placebo | Sudden death 0.49 [0.24; 0.98] | fatal and nonfatal MI 1.49 [1.03; 2.18] | all cause death 0.69 [0.42; 1.11] cardiac death 0.69 [0.47; 1.00] reinfarction 0.77 [0.41; 1.45] cardiac event (fatal and non fatal ) 0.73 [0.49; 1.10] | Wilcox , 1980 | Propranolol or atenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.94 [0.56; 1.58] cardiovascular death 0.86 [0.50; 1.47] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Balcon , 1966 | Propranolol (n=56) vs. (n=58) | |
Double Sample size: 56/58 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 28 days | Barber , 1976 | Propranolol (n=52) vs. (n=47) | |
No Sample size: 52/47 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4 weeks | Clausen , 1966 | Propranolol (n=66) vs. (n=64) | |
Unclear Sample size: 66/64 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 14 days | Curtis , 1991 | Propranolol 240mg/d (n=18) vs. placebo (n=12) | patients with recent infarction | Double Sample size: 18/12 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3.4 days | Dotremont , 1968 | Propranolol (n=36) vs. (n=36) | |
No Sample size: 36/36 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 36 weeks | Gupta , 1982 | Propranolol (n=25) vs. (n=25) | |
Unclear Sample size: 25/25 Primary endpoint: FU duration: Unclear | Gupta , 1984 | Propranolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=15) vs. (n=15) | |
No Sample size: 15/15 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 72 hours | Hutton , 1979 | Propranolol (n=16) vs. (n=13) | |
Unclear Sample size: 16/13 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2 days | Kahler , 1968 | Propranolol (n=38) vs. (n=31) | |
Double Sample size: 38/31 Primary endpoint: FU duration: Up to 35 days | Ledwich , 1968 | Propranolol (n=40) vs. (n=40) | |
Double Sample size: 40/40 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 7 days | Mueller , 1980 | Propranolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=35) vs. (n=35) | |
Double Sample size: 35/35 Primary endpoint: FU duration: To discharge | Multicentre , 1966 | Propranolol (n=100) vs. (n=95) | |
Double Sample size: 100/95 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 28 days | Nigam , 1983 | Propranolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=20) vs. (n=20) | |
Unclear Sample size: 20/20 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 week | Norris , 1968 | Propranolol (n=226) vs. (n=228) | |
Double Sample size: 226/228 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3 weeks | Norris , 1978 | Propranolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=20) vs. (n=23) | |
No Sample size: 20/23 Primary endpoint: FU duration: To discharge | Norris , 1984 | Propranolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=364) vs. (n=371) | |
No Sample size: 364/371 Primary endpoint: FU duration: In hospital | Peter , 1978 | Propranolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=47) vs. (n=48) | |
No Sample size: 47/48 Primary endpoint: FU duration: To discharge | Pitt , 1976 | Propranolol (n=9) vs. (n=8) | |
Double Sample size: 9/8 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 14 days | Roberts , 1984 | Propranolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=134) vs. (n=135) | |
Single Sample size: 134/135 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 36 months | Singh , 1985 | Propranolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=8) vs. (n=7) | |
No Sample size: 8/7 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 60 hours | Sloman , 1967 | Propranolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=26) vs. (n=23) | |
No Sample size: 26/23 Primary endpoint: FU duration: To discharge | Aronow , 1997 | Propranolol 30 mg 3 times daily (n=79) vs. no propranolol (n=79)
| patients >=62 years of age with New York Heart Association functional class II or III CHF, prior Qwave myocardial infarction, and a LV ejection fraction <40% after 2 months of treatment with diuretics and ACE inhibitors | Parallel groups Sample size: 79/79 Primary endpoint: NA FU duration: 1 year | Baber , 1980 | Propranolol 40 mg three times a day (n=355) vs. placebo (n=365) | Men and women with anterior MI | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 355/365 Primary endpoint: NA FU duration: 9 months | BHAT , 1982 | Propranolol 180 or 240 mg/day (n=1916) vs. placebo (n=1921) | mean and women who has experienced at least one MI | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1916/1921 Primary endpoint: all-cause mortality FU duration: 25 months | Hansteen , 1982 | Propranolol 40mg four times a day (n=278) vs. placebo (n=282) | high-risk patients who survived acute myocardial infarction | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 278/282 Primary endpoint: NA (sudden cardiac death may be) FU duration: 1 year | Wilcox , 1980 | Propranolol 40 mg three times daily(initial dose intravenously) n=132 or atenolol 50 mg twice daily n=127 (n=259) vs. placebo (n=129) | patients with acute MI within the past 24 hours | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 259/129 Primary endpoint: NA FU duration: 1 year |
|
acute myocardial infarction | sotalol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Lloyd , 1988 | Sotalol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Lloyd , 1988 | Sotalol (initial dose intravenously) (n=15) vs. (n=15) | |
No Sample size: 15/15 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 72 hours |
|
acute myocardial infarction | timolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 7 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Campbell , 1984 | Timolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.48 [0.05; 4.82] | Federman , 1984 | Timolol vs placebo | | | all cause death ∞ [NaN; ∞] | ICSG , 1984 | Timolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.73 [0.17; 3.14] | Ranganathan , 1988 | Timolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.36 [0.04; 3.36] | Tonkin , 1981 | Timolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.10 [0.07; 16.96] | UKCSG , 1983 | Timolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.79 [0.22; 2.77] | Norwegian Multicentre Study Group , 1981 | Timolol vs placebo | all cause death 0.64 [0.51; 0.81] cardiovascular death 0.58 [0.45; 0.75] Sudden death 0.49 [0.35; 0.69] cardiac death 0.58 [0.45; 0.75] reinfarction 0.62 [0.48; 0.80] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Campbell , 1984 | Timolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=20) vs. (n=19) | |
Unclear Sample size: 20/19 Primary endpoint: FU duration: In hospital | Federman , 1984 | Timolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=50) vs. (n=50) | |
Unclear Sample size: 50/50 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 28 days | ICSG , 1984 | Timolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=73) vs. (n=71) | patients within four hours after onset of symptoms of myocardial infarction | Double Sample size: 73/71 Primary endpoint: FU duration: To discharge | Ranganathan , 1988 | Timolol (initial dose intravenously) (n=45) vs. (n=49) | |
Double IV open orally Sample size: 45/49 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 28 days | Tonkin , 1981 | Timolol (n=42) vs. (n=46) | |
Double Sample size: 42/46 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1 year | UKCSG , 1983 | Timolol (n=56) vs. (n=55) | |
Double Sample size: 56/55 Primary endpoint: FU duration: To discharge | Norwegian Multicentre Study Group , 1981 | Timolol 10mg twice daily (n=945) vs. placebo (n=939) | patients surviving acute myocardial infarction | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 945/939 Primary endpoint: NA FU duration: 17 months |
|
acute myocardial infarction | xamoterol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
McMurray , 1991 | Xamoterol vs placebo | | | all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
McMurray , 1991 | Xamoterol (n=25) vs. (n=26) | |
Double Sample size: 25/26 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 7 days |
|
heart failure | bisoprolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CIBIS, 1994 | bisoprolol vs placebo | cardiovascular death 0.68 [0.47; 0.98] death or HF hospitalisation 0.77 [0.61; 0.97] hospitalisation for heart failure 0.66 [0.49; 0.90] NYHA improvement 1.42 [1.02; 1.99] | | NYHA deterioration 1.18 [0.77; 1.79] all cause death 0.79 [0.57; 1.10] | CIBIS II, 1999 | bisoprolol vs placebo | all cause death 0.68 [0.56; 0.82] death or HF hospitalisation 0.83 [0.75; 0.93] Sudden death 0.58 [0.41; 0.81] | | | CIBIS II (elderly subgroup), 1999 | Bisoprolol vs placebo | All cause death 0.70 [0.50; 0.98] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CIBIS, 1994 | bisoprolol 5mg/d (n=320) vs. placebo (n=321) | stable chronic idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy heart failure NYHA 3-4, EF<40% | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 320/321 Primary endpoint: Mortality FU duration: 1.9 years (range 4-44 mo) | CIBIS II, 1999 | Bisoprolol target dose 10mg/daily (n=1327) vs. control (n=1320) | chronic herat failure, ejection fraction<=35%, NYHA 3-4 | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1327/1320 Primary endpoint: all-cause mortality FU duration: 1.3 years Trial stop eraly but with a planned follox-up of 24 months | CIBIS II (elderly subgroup), 1999 | Bisoprolol (n=539) vs. placebo (n=0) | Patients aged 71 years and older | Sample size: 539/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
heart failure | bucindolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 5 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
BEST, 2001 | bucindolol vs placebo | cardiovascular death 0.88 [0.78; 1.00] hospitalisation for heart failure 0.84 [0.76; 0.92] | | all cause death 0.92 [0.82; 1.02] | Pollock, 1990 | Bucindolol vs placebo | | | | Woodley, 1991 | Bucindolol vs placebo | | | | Bristow, 1994 | Bucindolol vs placebo | | | | MERIT-HF (elderly subgroup), 1999 | Bucindolol vs placebo | All cause death 0.70 [0.53; 0.92] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
BEST, 2001 | bucindolol titrated to 50mg txice daily (n=1354) vs. placebo (n=1354) | patients with heart failure NYHA class III or IV and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35 percent or lower | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1354/1354 Primary endpoint: all-cause mortality FU duration: 2 years | Pollock, 1990 | bucindolol target dose 100mg twice daily (n=12) vs. placebo (n=7) | Patienst with stable, chronic heart failure with a dilated cardiomyopathy due to ischemic or isopathic causes | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 12/7 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance, hemodynamics FU duration: 3 months | Woodley, 1991 | bucindolol (n=29) vs. placebo (n=29) | NYHA 2-3, IDC/CAD | Sample size: 29/29 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance, hemodynamics FU duration: 3 mo | Bristow, 1994 | bucindolol (n=105) vs. placebo (n=34) | NYHA 2-3, IDC | Sample size: 105/34 Primary endpoint: Functional class FU duration: 3 mo | MERIT-HF (elderly subgroup), 1999 | Bucindolol (n=1330) vs. placebo (n=0) | Patients aged 65 years and olderwith chronic heart failure in NYHA functional class II-IV and with ejection fraction of 0.40 or less, stabilised with optimum standard therapy | Sample size: 1330/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
heart failure | carvedilol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 12 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ANZ-HeFT, 1997 | carvedilol vs placebo | | | NYHA deterioration 1.23 [0.77; 1.97] all cause death 0.77 [0.45; 1.34] cardiovascular death 0.90 [0.49; 1.66] death or HF hospitalisation 0.72 [0.49; 1.06] hospitalisation for heart failure 0.70 [0.43; 1.15] NYHA improvement 0.94 [0.68; 1.28] | COPERNICUS, 2002 | carvedilol vs placebo | all cause death 0.67 [0.54; 0.83] death or HF hospitalisation 0.82 [0.74; 0.91] hospitalisation for heart failure 0.67 [0.59; 0.76] | | | CAPRICORN, 2001 | carvedilol vs placebo | all cause death 0.78 [0.62; 0.97] cardiovascular death 0.76 [0.60; 0.96] | | death or HF hospitalisation 0.93 [0.83; 1.05] hospitalisation for heart failure 0.86 [0.69; 1.09] | Metra, 1994 | carvedilol vs placebo | | | | Olsen, 1995 | carvedilol vs placebo | | | | Krum, 1995 | carvedilol vs placebo | | | | Bristow (MOCHA), 1996 | carvedilol vs placebo | | | | Parker, 1996 | carvedilol vs placebo | | | cardiovascular death 0.70 [0.42; 1.17] Sudden death 0.87 [0.42; 1.79] | Colucci, 1996 | carvedilol vs placebo | | | | Cohn, 1997 | carvedilol vs placebo | | | | Carvedilol U.S. Trials (elderly subgroup), 1996 | Carvedilol vs placebo | All cause death 0.45 [0.23; 0.86] | | | COPERNICUS (elderly subgroup), 2001 | Carvedilol vs placebo | All cause death 0.75 [0.57; 0.99] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ANZ-HeFT, 1997 | carvedilol target dose 25mg twice daily (n=207) vs. placebo (n=208) | chronic stable heart failure, NYHA 1-3 | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 207/208 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance, EF Morbidity 1 mortality FU duration: 19 mo (range 18-24 mo) | COPERNICUS, 2002 | carvedilol traget dose of 25 mg twice daily (n=1156) vs. placebo (n=1133) | patients with symptoms of heart failure at rest or on minimal exertion and with an ejection fraction <25% (but not volume-overloaded) | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1156/1133 Primary endpoint: all-cause mortality FU duration: 10.4 months | CAPRICORN, 2001 | carvedilol target dose 25mg twice daily (n=975) vs. placebo (n=984) | proven acute myocardial infarction and a left-ventricular ejection fraction of <=40% | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 975/984 Primary endpoint: all-cause death or hospitalization FU duration: 1.3 years | Metra, 1994 | carvedilol (n=20) vs. placebo (n=20) | NYHA 2-3, IDC | Sample size: 20/20 Primary endpoint: Hemodynamics FU duration: 4 mo | Olsen, 1995 | carvedilol (n=36) vs. placebo (n=23) | NYHA 2-4, IDC/CAD | Sample size: 36/23 Primary endpoint: Hemodynamics FU duration: 4 mo | Krum, 1995 | carvedilol 25 mg twice daily during 14 weeks (n=33) vs. placebo (n=16) selection of patients tolerating during run-in period 12.5mg twice daily | Patients with advanced heart failure(NYHA 3-4), EF <=0.35 | Sample size: 33/16 Primary endpoint: Hemodynamics FU duration: 3.5 mo | Bristow (MOCHA), 1996 | carvedilol (n=261) vs. placebo (n=84) | NYHA 2-4, IDC/CAD | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 261/84 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance FU duration: 6.5-8 mo | Parker, 1996 | carvediloltarget dose 25 mg twice daily (n=696) vs. placebo (n=398) nested dose-ranging protocol (6.25, 12.5, 25 mg twice daily) cocnerning 345 patients (32%) | patients with heart failure and ejection fraction<0.35 | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 696/398 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance FU duration: 6.5 mo (1 day - 15.1 mo) | Colucci, 1996 | carvedilol (n=232) vs. placebo (n=134) | mild symptomatic heart failure; ejection fraction<=0.35; 6-minute walk test of 450-550m; on optimal standard therapy including ACE inhibitors | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 232/134 Primary endpoint: progression of heart failure FU duration: 213 days (0.6 years) | Cohn, 1997 | carvedilol (n=70) vs. placebo (n=35) | NYHA 3-4, IDC/CAD | Sample size: 70/35 Primary endpoint: Quality of life FU duration: <8 mo | Carvedilol U.S. Trials (elderly subgroup), 1996 | Carvedilol (n=554) vs. placebo (n=0) | Patients aged 65 years and older | Sample size: 554/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | COPERNICUS (elderly subgroup), 2001 | Carvedilol (n=1102) vs. placebo (n=0) | Patients aged 59 years and older | Sample size: 1102/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
heart failure | carvedilol | not classified | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CARMEN (carvedilol alone), 2004 | carvedilol vs enalapril | | | all cause death 0.99 [0.49; 2.03] cardiovascular death 0.92 [0.45; 1.91] hospitalisation for heart failure 0.75 [0.36; 1.53] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CARMEN (carvedilol alone), 2004 | carvedilol (target 25 mg bid) (n=191) vs. enalapril (target 10 mg bid) (n=190) | patients with mild heart failure | ND Sample size: 191/190 Primary endpoint: left ventricular remodelling FU duration: 18 months |
|
heart failure | carvedilol | not classified | versus beta-blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
COMET, 2003 | carvedilol vs metoprolol | all cause death 0.86 [0.78; 0.94] cardiovascular death 0.82 [0.74; 0.91] | | death or HF hospitalisation 0.97 [0.93; 1.01] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
COMET, 2003 | carvedilol (target dose 25 mg twice daily) (n=1511) vs. metoprolol tartrate target dose 50 mg twice daily (n=1518) | chronic heart failure (NYHA II–IV) with a previous admission for a cardiovascular reason and ejection fraction of less than 0·35, and have been treated optimally with diuretics and angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitors unless not tolerated. | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1511/1518 Primary endpoint: all-cause mortality and the composite endpoint FU duration: 4.83 years |
|
heart failure | metoprolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 7 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
MDC (Waagstein), 1993 | metoprolol vs placebo | | | NYHA deterioration 0.87 [0.34; 2.20] all cause death 1.07 [0.61; 1.86] death or HF hospitalisation 0.77 [0.56; 1.06] hospitalisation for heart failure 0.74 [0.50; 1.07] NYHA improvement 1.26 [0.93; 1.70] | MERIT-HF, 1999 | metoprolol vs placebo | all cause death 0.67 [0.55; 0.82] cardiovascular death 0.63 [0.51; 0.78] Sudden death 0.60 [0.46; 0.79] | | | Engelmeier, 1985 | metoprolol vs placebo | | | | Fisher, 1994 | metoprolol vs placebo | | | | Eichhorn, 1994 | metoprolol vs placebo | | | | RESOLVD, 2000 | metoprolol vs placebo | | | | BEST (elderly subgroup), 2001 | Metoprolol vs placebo | | | All cause death 0.91 [0.75; 1.11] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
MDC (Waagstein), 1993 | metoprolol target dose 100-150 mg daily (dose divided into two or three per day) (n=194) vs. placebo (n=189) | patient with heart failure due to idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (NYHA 1-3) and EF<40% | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 194/189 Primary endpoint: death or transplantation waiting list FU duration: 18 months | MERIT-HF, 1999 | metoprolol CR/XL at target dose of 200 mg once daily (n=1990) vs. placebo (n=2001) | patients with chronic heart
failure in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II–IV and with ejection fraction of 0·40 or less, stabilised with optimum standard therapy | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1990/2001 Primary endpoint: all-cause death FU duration: 1 y | Engelmeier, 1985 | metoprolol (n=9) vs. placebo (n=16) | NYHA 2-4, IDC | Sample size: 9/16 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance FU duration: 12 mo | Fisher, 1994 | metoprolol (n=25) vs. placebo (n=25) | NYHA 3-4, CAD | Sample size: 25/25 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance FU duration: 6 mo | Eichhorn, 1994 | metoprolol (n=15) vs. placebo (n=9) | NYHA 2-3, IDC | Sample size: 15/9 Primary endpoint: Hemodynamics FU duration: 3 mo | RESOLVD, 2000 | metoprolol CR 200 mg/d (n=214) vs. placebo (n=212) | CHF of mixed causes, patients with symptomatic CHF(NYHA II to IV), a 6-minute walk distance of <500 m, and an LV ejection fraction (EF) of<40% | Double aveugle Parallel groups Sample size: 214/212 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 6 mo | BEST (elderly subgroup), 2001 | Metoprolol (n=1092) vs. placebo (n=0) | Upper tertile age | Sample size: 1092/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
heart failure | nebivolol | not classified | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Lechat, 1991 | Nebivolol vs placebo | | | | Wisenbaugh, 1993 | Nebivolol vs placebo | | | all cause death ∞ [NaN; ∞] hospitalisation for heart failure NaN [NaN; NaN] | | nebivolol vs placebo | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Lechat, 1991 | nebivolol 5mg/d (n=6) vs. placebo (n=6) | NYHA 3-4 | Double aveugle Parallel groups Sample size: 6/6 Primary endpoint: Exercise tolerance FU duration: 1.5 month | Wisenbaugh, 1993 | nebivolol (n=11) vs. placebo (n=13) | patients with dilated idiopathic or ischemic cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction 0.15 to 0.40) in stable NYHA class II or III | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 11/13 Primary endpoint: Hemodynamics MSI FU duration: 3 mo | SENIORS, 2005 | nebivolol (titrated from 1.25 mg once
daily to 10 mg once daily) (n=1067) vs. placebo (n=1061) | patients aged 70 years with a
history of heart failure (hospital admission for heart failure within the previous year
or known ejection fraction 35%), | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1067/1061 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 21 months |
|