For more than 30 years, beta-blockers have widely been used in the treatment of patients with myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, heart failure, certain cardiac arrhythmias and hypertension. Quite recently, however, beta-blockers have been put under trial by results of some controlled studies and meta-analyses conducted in patients with essential hypertension. In summary, beta-blockers proved not better, or even worse, than alternative treatments and only marginally better than placebo. However, some arguments of caveat must be remarked. First, most of these studies have been conducted in hypertensive subjects of old age or complicated by several concomitant risk factors. A considerable portion of hypertensive patients most frequently examined in the usual practice would have not meet inclusion criteria for the above trials. In addition, several methodological issues of meta-analyses raised concern. Results were mainly driven from two major trials (LIFE and ASCOT). Unexpectedly, recent hypertension guidelines issued by the British Hypertension Society fully endorsed these results and recommended beta-blockers as fourth-line drugs in hypertensive patients with blood pressure not adequately controlled by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and diuretics in combination. Because most of the above trials used atenolol, several lines of evidence warn against extending limitations to beta-blockers to the entire class of these drugs. Some new-generation beta-blockers, although not yet widely tested in outcome-based studies, induce peripheral vasodilatation and do not exert the detrimental effect of atenolol on central blood pressure and arterial distensibility. The present review addresses facts and theories related to the actual concern on the role of beta-blockers in the modern management of hypertensive patients.
[Beta-blockers and arterial hypertension. Evidence-based medicine or excessive perseverance?]
Fabio Angeli;
2007-01-01
Abstract
For more than 30 years, beta-blockers have widely been used in the treatment of patients with myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, heart failure, certain cardiac arrhythmias and hypertension. Quite recently, however, beta-blockers have been put under trial by results of some controlled studies and meta-analyses conducted in patients with essential hypertension. In summary, beta-blockers proved not better, or even worse, than alternative treatments and only marginally better than placebo. However, some arguments of caveat must be remarked. First, most of these studies have been conducted in hypertensive subjects of old age or complicated by several concomitant risk factors. A considerable portion of hypertensive patients most frequently examined in the usual practice would have not meet inclusion criteria for the above trials. In addition, several methodological issues of meta-analyses raised concern. Results were mainly driven from two major trials (LIFE and ASCOT). Unexpectedly, recent hypertension guidelines issued by the British Hypertension Society fully endorsed these results and recommended beta-blockers as fourth-line drugs in hypertensive patients with blood pressure not adequately controlled by angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers and diuretics in combination. Because most of the above trials used atenolol, several lines of evidence warn against extending limitations to beta-blockers to the entire class of these drugs. Some new-generation beta-blockers, although not yet widely tested in outcome-based studies, induce peripheral vasodilatation and do not exert the detrimental effect of atenolol on central blood pressure and arterial distensibility. The present review addresses facts and theories related to the actual concern on the role of beta-blockers in the modern management of hypertensive patients.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
