Relation of Beta-Blocker-Induced Heart Rate Lowering and Cardioprotection in Hypertension

Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, St Luke's Roosevelt Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York 10019, USA.
Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Impact Factor: 15.34). 10/2008; 52(18):1482-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.06.048
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of heart rate reduction with beta-blockers on the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension.
Resting heart rate has been shown to be a risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the general population and in patients with heart disease such as hypertension, myocardial infarction, and heart failure. Conversely, pharmacological reduction of heart rate is beneficial for patients with heart disease. However, the role of pharmacological reduction of heart rate using beta-blockers in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension is not known.
We conducted a MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL database search of studies from 1966 to May 2008. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension with follow-up for at least 1 year and with data on heart rate. We extracted the baseline characteristics, the blood pressure response, heart rate at the baseline and end of trial, and cardiovascular outcomes from each trial.
Of 22 randomized controlled trials evaluating beta-blockers for hypertension, 9 studies reported heart rate data. The 9 studies evaluated 34,096 patients taking beta-blockers against 30,139 patients taking other antihypertensive agents and 3,987 patients receiving placebo. Paradoxically, a lower heart rate (as attained in the beta-blocker group at study end) was associated with a greater risk for the end points of all-cause mortality (r = -0.51; p < 0.0001), cardiovascular mortality (r = -0.61; p < 0.0001), myocardial infarction (r = -0.85; p < 0.0001), stroke (r = -0.20; p = 0.06), or heart failure (r = -0.64; p < 0.0001). The same was true when the heart rate difference between the 2 treatment modalities at the end of the study was compared with the relative risk reduction for cardiovascular events.
In contrast to patients with myocardial infarction and heart failure, beta-blocker-associated reduction in heart rate increased the risk of cardiovascular events and death for hypertensive patients.

Download full-text


Available from: Sripal Bangalore, Jan 22, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hypertension is a multi-aetiological, chronic pathophysiology that leads to multi-organ dysfunctions like cardiovascular diseases, strokes, and renal complications. Synthetic anti-hypertensive drugs have been blamed for side effects of various sorts. Thus, the search for natural, safe, and food-based anti-hypertensive agents has gained momentum. Mushrooms, abundant in bio-active components, had been recognized for its use as therapeutics in alternative and complementary medicine as well as functional food. In the present article, the potential of both culinary and edible-turned-medicinal mushrooms is reviewed with respect to their anti-hypertensive effects along with the respective bio-component’s mode of action.
    Trends in Food Science & Technology 07/2014; 39(2). DOI:10.1016/j.tifs.2014.06.002 · 4.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: CMS-1, mainly composed of imperatorin as its active compound, is a partially purified fraction of a Chinese herbal medicine, Semen Cnidium monnieri. CMS-1 has the potential to be further developed as a new treatment for hypertension. Thus, we studied its toxicity in both Sprague–Dawley rats and beagle dogs. Rats (0–900 mg/kg/day) and dogs (0–450 mg/kg/day) received CMS-1 orally for 30 consecutive days, followed by a 15-day recovery period. The major target organs of CMS-1 toxicity are the GI (inappetence), liver (hepatocellular necrosis, enzyme elevation), thymus (atrophy), cardiovascular (hypotension, changes in ECG T and P waveforms, elevation of nitrous oxide levels and hematological (RBC parameters disturbances) systems. Most treatment-induced adverse effects were reversible or showed a progressive recovery upon discontinuation of the treatment. The No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) was 100 mg/kg/day for rats and 50 mg/kg/day for dogs. This non-clinical study suggests that clinical monitoring of CMS-1 in patients should focus on the gastrointestinal system, blood tests for liver functions, electrolytes, and blood homeostasis, cardiovascular functions, and immune functions.
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 01/2014; · 2.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The effects of a 12-week low-intensity exercise conditioning program (walking) on blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), rate- pressure product (RPP), and cardiac autonomic function were measured in 40 sedentary women with hypertension. Women were assigned to either an exercise group (n = 20) or a control group (n = 20), matched for β-blockade treatment. They underwent testing at the beginning and at the end of the 12-week study period in three conditions: supine rest, standing, and low-intensity steady state exercise. The exercise group participated in a 12-week, low-intensity walking program, while the control group continued with usual sedentary activity. Compared with the control group, women in the exercise group showed reductions in systolic and diastolic BP and RPP (i.e., the estimated cardiac workload). β-Blockers increased baroreflex sensitivity and lowered BP and HR in all participants; however, those in the exercise group showed the effects of both treatments: a greater reduction in HR and RPP. The combination of exercise training and β-blockade produces cardiac and autonomic adaptations that are not observed with either treatment alone, suggesting that β-blockade enhances the conditioning effects of low-intensity exercise in women with hypertension.
    Biological Research for Nursing 10/2012; 15(4). DOI:10.1177/1099800412461562 · 1.34 Impact Factor