首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparative effectiveness of different beta-adrenergic antagonists on mortality among adults with heart failure in clinical practice.
【2h】

Comparative effectiveness of different beta-adrenergic antagonists on mortality among adults with heart failure in clinical practice.

机译:临床实践中不同β-肾上腺素能拮抗剂对心力衰竭成人死亡率的比较效果。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have demonstrated the efficacy of selected beta-blockers in systolic heart failure, but the comparative effectiveness of different beta-blockers in practice is poorly understood.METHODS: We compared mortality associated with different beta-blockers following hospitalization for heart failure between 2001 and 2003. Longitudinal exposure to beta-blockers was ascertained from pharmacy databases. Patient characteristics and other medication use were identified from administrative, hospitalization, outpatient, and pharmacy databases. Death was identified from administrative, state mortality, and Social Security Administration databases. Multivariate Cox regression was used to examine the association between different beta-blockers and death.RESULTS: Among 11 326 adults surviving a hospitalization for heart failure, 7976 received beta-blockers (atenolol, 38.5%; metoprolol tartrate, 43.2%; carvedilol, 11.6%; and other, 6.7%) during follow-up. The rate (per 100 person-years) of death during the 12 months after discharge varied by exposure and type of beta-blocker (atenolol, 20.1; metoprolol tartrate, 22.8; carvedilol, 17.7; and no beta-blockers, 37.0). After adjustment for confounders and the propensity to receive carvedilol, the risk of death compared with atenolol was higher for metoprolol tartrate (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.34) and no beta-blockers (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84) but was not significantly different for carvedilol (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.44).CONCLUSIONS: Compared with atenolol, the adjusted risks of death were slightly higher with shorter-acting metoprolol tartrate but did not significantly differ for carvedilol in adults with heart failure. Our results should be interpreted cautiously and they suggest the need for randomized trials within real-world settings comparing a broader spectrum of beta-blockers for heart failure.
机译:背景:随机试验已证明所选的β受体阻滞剂在收缩性心力衰竭中的疗效,但在实践中对不同的β受体阻滞剂的比较功效了解甚少。方法:我们比较了住院期间因心力衰竭而住院的不同β受体阻滞剂的死亡率。 2001年和2003年。从药房数据库确定了纵向暴露于β受体阻滞剂的情况。从行政,住院,门诊和药房数据库中识别出患者特征和其他用药情况。从行政,州死亡率和社会保障署数据库中识别出死亡。结果:使用多变量Cox回归分析了不同的β受体阻滞剂与死亡之间的关系。结果:在11 326名因心力衰竭住院的成年人中,有7976例接受了β受体阻滞剂(阿替洛尔38.5%;酒石酸美托洛尔43.2%;卡维地洛11.6。 %;其他则为6.7%)。出院后12个月内的死亡率(每100人年)因暴露和β受体阻滞剂的类型而不同(阿替洛尔为20.1;酒石酸美托洛尔为22.8;卡维地洛为17.7;无β受体阻滞剂为37.0)。调整混杂因素和接受卡维地洛的倾向后,酒石酸美托洛尔的死亡风险高于阿替洛尔(调整后的危险比[HR]为1.16; 95%置信区间[CI]为1.01-1.34),且无β受体阻滞剂(HR,1.63; 95%CI,1.44-1.84),但卡维地洛的差异无统计学意义(HR,1.16; 95%CI,0.92-1.44)。结论:与阿替洛尔相比,调整后的死亡风险略高,而死亡时间更短作用的酒石酸美托洛尔,但对于心力衰竭的成年人,卡维地洛的作用无明显差异。我们的结果应谨慎解释,并建议有必要在现实环境中进行比较广泛范围的β受体阻滞剂治疗心力衰竭的随机试验。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号