Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of carvedilol and metoprolol for primary hypertension. Methods Such databases as PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were electronically searched for relevant studies from inception to December, 2012. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results 7 trials involving 2 243 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the reduction of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and heart rate between the carvedilol and metoprolol groups (Pgt;0.05). However, the carvedilol group was superior to the metoprolol group in improving serum triglyceride (MD=0.75, 95%CI 0.45 to 1.04, Plt;0.000 01), serum cholesterol (MD=0.38, 95%CI 0.19 to 0.56, Plt;0.000 1), serum low density lipoprotein (MD=0.59, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.85, Plt;0.000 01), serum high density lipoprotein (MD= –0.09, 95%CI –0.16 to –0.02, P=0.008), and fasting plasma glucose (MD=0.36, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.51, Plt;0.000 01). In addition, the incidence of drug related adverse reaction was significantly lower in the carvedilol group (OR=0.39, 95%CI 0.24 to 0.63, P=0.000 1). Conclusion Based on current evidence, carvedilol tends to have beneficial effects on metabolic parameters and safety profiles, compared with metoprolol.
Objective According to health technology assessment (HTA) methodology, to assess the efficacy and safety of different doses of metoprolol in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods Based on the principles of HTA, we searched some important medical databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and CMCC, as well as several national special heart disease databases and side effect centers. We selected eligible studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and critically assessed their quality. Results Intravenous metoprolol 10 mg - 15 mg could control rapid ventricular rate in patients with chronic AF. On either rest or exercise, oral metoprolol 150 mg/d had a better control of rapid ventricular rate than 50 mg/d in patients with chronic AF. For preventing postoperative AF (POAF), the intravenous metoprolol 20 mg group and the 30 mg group could decrease the incidence of POAF compared to the 10 mg group. Oral metoprolol 150 mg/d was more effective than 100 mg/d in preventing POAF. In addition, intravenous metoprolol therapy was well-tolerated and more effective than oral metoprolol therapy in preventing atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. Results from several national side effect centers demonstrated that the incidence of adverse reactions associated with metoprolol was low. Conclusion Present evidence showed that high dose of metoprolol was superior to low dose in treating AF, however, the evidence available is insufficient. It is suggested that adequate evidence through further studies are needed. The safety profile of different doses of metoprolol is similar.
Objective To access the efficacy and safety of different doses of metoprolol for patients with chronic heart failure. Methods We searched databases such as MEDLINE, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM and CMCC. The search was conducted in March 2006. Randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews, and current guidelines of chronic heart failure were reviewed. The efficacy and safety of the high-dose (≥100 mg/d) and low-dose metoprolol (lt;100 mg/d) were compared. Results Only one small-scale, short-term randomised trial met our inclusion criteria. This found that metoprolol 100 mg/d was more effective than 25 mg/d and 50 mg/d. A sub-group analysis of MERIT-HF recommended individualized titration for drug administration. Most guidelines suggested that the administration of metoprolol CR/XL for chronic left ventricular systolic dysfunction should be performed by titrating up to 200 mg/d or the maximum tolerance dose. Patients receiving 100 mg/d might have more adverse events than those receiving a lower dose than this. However, in the long-term, it’s the benefits of high-dose treatment outweighed its risks. Race-related differences in tolerance or dose-related adverse effects were not found. Conclusion We couldn’t determine an optimal dose based on the existing evidence, but a target dose of metoprolol CR/XL 200 mg/d is safe and effective. We are unable to draw any conclusions about the relationship between dose and adverse effects.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different doses of metoprolol in the treatment of primary hypertension.Methods We searched for randomized controlled trials of different doses of metoprolol in the treatment of primary hypertension. We screened relevant studies according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, evaluated the quality of the included studies, and performed meta-analyses by using The Cochrane Collaboration’s Revman 4.2.8 software. Results Five randomized controlled trials of different doses of metoprolol in the treatment of primary hypertension were included. Two were of high quality and the other three were of low quality. No study reported mortality or the incidence of cardiovascular events, but four studies reported the means and standard deviations of systolic and diastolic blood pressures and heart rate. Based on the two self-control studies, meta-analyses of the levels of systolic and diastolic blood pressures before and after treatment of different doses of metoprolol showed that the combined OR for systolic blood pressure levels was -4.62 [95%CI (-7.77, -1.47), P=0.004]; and for the diastolic blood pressure levels, the combined OR was -5.71 [95%CI (-6.75, -4.68), Plt;0.000 01]. Four studies reported adverse reactions, and meta-analysis of the incidence of non-specific adverse reactions showed that the combined OR was 2.61 [95%CI (1.33, 5.13), P=0.005]. Conclusion A dose-effect relationship may exist between the dose of metoprolol and antihypertensive effect in the treatment of hypertension. When the antihypertensive effect of low-dose metoprolol was inadequate, an increase in the dose may lower blood pressure further. Although high-dose metoprolol has higher incidence of adverse reactions, it can be tolerated by most patients. Therefore, in the treatment of hypertension with metoprolol, an individualized dosing regimen can be applied according to the patient’s tolerance, and blood pressure may be controlled ideally by a gradual increase of the metoprolol dose to its maximum tolerated dose.
目的 探讨大剂量西地兰联合小剂量酒石酸美托洛尔经静脉途径治疗急性左心衰伴快速心室率心房颤动的疗效与安全性。 方法 将2005年6月－2012年2月收治的76例急性左心衰伴快速心室率心房颤动患者，随机分配至对照组（39例）与治疗组（37例），对照组静脉注射西地兰，治疗组静脉注射西地兰与小剂量酒石酸美托洛尔，分别在用药开始时及用药开始后全程监测收缩压、心室率、呼吸频率、手指脉搏血氧饱和度（SpO2）、呼吸困难程度、肺部啰音与治疗2 h时尿量，记录急性左心衰改善时间。 结果 两组患者在治疗开始时心室率（P=0.246）、呼吸频率（P=0.390）、收缩压（P=0.525）与SpO2（P=0.482）均无统计学意义；在治疗整个过程中，两组患者收缩压与治疗2 h尿量均无统计学意义（P=0.264）；在治疗开始后30、60、90、120 min时治疗组患者心室率均显著低于对照组（P=0.000）。治疗组患者从在治疗开始到急性左心衰改善的时间明显短于对照组（P=0.003）。试验期间无1例患者出现病情恶化或死亡。 结论 在排除美托洛尔禁忌症的前提下，在严密监测肺部啰音及指氧饱和度的情况下，对那些平时心功能Ⅰ~Ⅱ级的急性左心衰伴快速心室率心房颤动患者，在经静脉途径给予大剂量西地兰的同时，间断多次静脉注射小剂量美托洛尔，能安全有效地控制过快心室率，缩短急性左心衰竭持续时间。
目的 观察β受体阻滞剂卡维地洛和美托洛尔对高血压性心脏病患者左室心肌质量的影响。 方法 将2005年6月－2007年6月收治的260例原发性高血压性心脏病患者，随机分为A、B两组，每组130例。均停用其他降压药物1周后，A组服用卡维地洛，B组服用美托洛尔。两组第1周均服用12.5 mg，2次/d；无明显心动过缓或血压明显下降者，第2周改服25 mg，2次/d，必要时均加用硝苯地平控释片以血压降低至正常范围，心率≥55次/min为宜，每2周加量，最大剂量为50 mg ，2次/d。疗程6个月。观察指标：分别于用药前后测定患者左室舒张末内径（LVDd）、左室射血分数（LVEF）、室间隔厚度（LVST）及左室后壁厚度（PWT）。计算左室心肌质量（LVMW）、左室心肌质量指数（LVWI）。 结果 A、B两组在试验前后分别作自身对比，LVDd减小，LVST及PWT变薄，LVEF增高，LVWI降低差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）；A、B两组在试验后对比，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。 结论 卡维地洛、美托洛尔应用于高血压心脏病患者，可有效降低血压和减慢心率，减少心肌耗氧量，降低左室负荷及神经激素的活动，减轻左室肥厚，减低心肌质量。
【摘要】 目的 探讨西地兰联合小剂量酒石酸美托洛尔静脉注射治疗二尖瓣狭窄合并急性肺水肿与快速型心房颤动的疗效与安全性。 方法 将2005年1月-2010年2月收治的60例二尖瓣狭窄合并急性肺水肿与快速型心房颤动患者，随机分配至西地兰组与联合用药组，西地兰组以多次静脉注射西地兰控制心率，联合用药组则予以多次静脉注射西地兰与小剂量酒石酸美托洛尔，分别在用药开始时、用药开始后监测收缩压、心率、呼吸频率与手指脉搏血氧饱和度（SpO2），同时观察肺部啰音、呼吸困难，记录肺水肿改善时间。 结果 两组患者在治疗开始时心异率、呼吸频率、收缩压与SpO2均无差异；在治疗整个过程中，两组患者收缩压无差异；治疗开始后60、90及120 min时联合用药组心率均显著低于西地兰组。联合用药组从在治疗开始到肺水肿改善的时间短于西地兰组[(71.37±13.37)、(78.77±14.74) min，P=0.046]。治疗期间无患者出现病情恶化或死亡。联合用药组患者的酒石酸美托洛尔平均总量为4.22 mg/例。 结论 在排除美托洛尔禁忌症的前提下，静脉注射西地兰与小剂量酒石酸美托洛尔可快速、安全、有效地控制二尖瓣狭窄合并急性肺水肿与心房颤动患者的心率，缓解肺水肿。【Abstract】 Objective To observe the effect of intravenous injection with cedilanid and small does of metoprolol tartrate on mitral stenosis complicating with acute pulmonary edema and atrial fibrillation. Methods Sixty patients with mitral stenosis complicating with acute pulmonary edema and atrial fibrillation from January 2005 to February 2010 were randomly divided into cedilanid group and drug combination group, which was administered with cedilanid, or cedilanid and small does metoprolol tartrate by intravenous injection, respectively. Systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2), dypnea, rales over lung field and the time from beginning of treatment to pulmonary edema improved were monitored as soon as the treatment began. Results There was no significant difference in basic data such as systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and SpO2 at the beginning of treatment between the two groups, and no obvious difference was seen in systolic blood pressure at all the time of treatment between the two groups; while a obvious decrease took place in heart rate between cedilanid group and drug combination group after the treatment began; the time from beginning of treatment to pulmonary edema in drug combination group was much shorter than that in cedilanid group [(71.37±13.37), (78.77±14.74) minutes, P=0.046]. Conclusion Without contraindication of metoprolol, intravenous injection with cedilanid combined with small dose of metoprolol can effectively, quickly and safely treat the patients with mitral stenosis complicating with acute pulmonary edema and atrial fibrillation by controlling the heart rate.
摘要:目的:观察美托洛尔对高血压并慢性心衰(CHF)患者的心功能影响及临床疗效。方法:择高血压并高心病或冠心病60例,心功能Ⅱ～Ⅳ级的患者,随机分为两组,常规组(30例),给与控制血压、利尿、转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)、洋地黄治疗。美托洛尔组(30例),在常规治疗基础上加用美托洛尔。结果：美托洛尔组临床显效率(667%),总有效率(93.4%),较常规组显著提高(Plt;0.05)。美托洛尔组与常规组治疗前后,心率、血压、左室舒张末期直径、左室收缩末期直径、左室射血分数、心输出量、E/A、等容舒张期时间均有显著改善(美托洛尔组Plt;0.01,常规组Plt;0.05),且美托洛尔组上述指标改善更明显(Plt;0.01或Plt;0.05)。结论:美托洛尔显著改善高血压并慢性心力衰竭患者的心功能,是一种安全有效的治疗方法。Abstract: Objective: To observe US to hold Luo river to hypertension and the chronic heart failure (CHF) patient’s heart function influence and the clinical curative effect. Methods: Selects hypertension and the high worry or the coronary disease 60 examples, the heart functionⅡ~ⅣThe level patient, divides into two groups stochastically, the conventional group (30 examples), gives the control blood pressure, the diuresis, the transformation enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), the digitalis treatment. US holds Luo river Zu (30 examples), adds in the conventional treatment foundation with US holds Luo river. Results: US holds the Luo river group clinical obviously efficiency (66.7%), the total effectiveness (93.4%), compares the conventional group remarkable enhancement (Plt;0.05). Around US holds Luo river Zu and the conventional group treats, the heart rate, the blood pressure, the left room diastole last stage diameter, the left room contraction last stage diameter, the left room shoot the menstruation number, the cardiac output, E/A, the constant volume relaxing period time to have the remarkable improvement (US to hold Luo river ZuPlt;0.01, conventional group (P lt;0.05), and US holds the Luo river group above target improvement to be more obvious (Plt;001 or Plt;0.05). Conclusion: US holds Luo river obviously to improve hypertension and the chronic heart
ObjectiveTo explore the effects of metoprolol on hemodynamics of early septic shock patients with myocardial injury. MethodsWe prospectively recruited 22 septic shock patients with myocardial injury, who were admitted to the ICU of Xiaolan Hospital during March 2014 and February 2015.The metoprolol was injected through central venous catheter to reduce heart rate by 20% from baseline and maintain for 6h.Hemodynamic and oxygen metabolic parameters were collected to establish database. ResultsHeart rate decreased significantly to (98±18), (95±16) and (92±18) beat/min respectively at 1h, 3h and 6h post-dosing, compared with (125±28) beat/min at pre-dosing (P < 0.05).Cardiac index decreased significantly to (3.2±1.5), (3.3±1.9) and (3.3±1.6) L·min-1·m-2 respectively at 1h, 3h and 6h post-dosing, compared with (3.9±2.5) L·min-1·m-2 at pre-dosing (P < 0.05).The mean blood pressure, central venous pressure, pulmonary artery wedge pressure, pulmonary vascular resistance index, systemic vascular resistance index and stroke volume index showed no significant changes between pre-dosing and post-dosing (all P > 0.05). Lactate concentration decreased significantly to (9.8±4.1) and (8.1±3.6)mmol/L respectively at 3h and 6h post-dosing, compared with (13.4±5.2)mmol/L at pre-dosing (all P < 0.05), but mixed venous oxygen saturation showed no significant changes (P > 0.05). ConclusionMetoprolol may reduce heart rate and cardiac output in septic shock patients with myocardial injury, without obvious adverse effects on circulatory function and systemic perfusion.
ObjectiveTo analyze different doses of metoprolol in prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF) after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG).MethodsFrom June 2016 to August 2017, 358 patients undergoing CABG in cardiothoracic surgery in Nanjing First Hospital were randomly divided into two groups according to the dose of metoprolol: a group A with metoprolol of 25 mg/d, a total of 182 patients, including 145 males and 37 females, with an average age of 65.40±10.52 years; a group B with metoprolol of 75 mg/d, a total of 176 patients, 138 males and 38 females with an average age of 63.31±9.04 years. The incidence of AF was observed 5 days after surgery.ResultsThe incidence of post-CABG AF (PCAF) in the group A and the group B was 27.47%, 18.18%, respectively with a statistical difference (P=0.04). PCAF was detected its maximum peak on the second day post-surgery. Of patients at age of 70 years or more, the incidence of PCAF in the group A was higher than that in the group B with no statistical difference (P=0.18). Among the patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) lower than 40%, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of PCAF between the two groups (P=0.76).ConclusionMetoprolol 75.00 mg/d is better than 25.00 mg/d in preventing new AF after CABG.