CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Devereaux, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Leslie, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Devereaux, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Leslie, K.
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 51:290-292 (2004)
© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, 2004

General Anesthesia

Best evidence in anesthetic practice

Prevention: {alpha}2- and ß-adrenergic antagonists reduce perioperative cardiac events

Philip J. Devereaux, MD FRCPC1 and Kate Leslie, MD MEPI FANZA2

1 Hamilton, Ontario
2 Melbourne, Australia


    Article appraised
 TOP
 Article appraised
 Structured abstract
 Commentary by P. J....
 References
 
Stevens RD, Burri H, Tramèr MR. Pharmacologic myocardial protection in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a quantitative systematic review. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 623–33.


    Structured abstract
 TOP
 Article appraised
 Structured abstract
 Commentary by P. J....
 References
 
Question: In patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery, what is the efficacy and harm of pharmacological interventions in preventing perioperative myocardial ischemia, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or cardiac mortality?

Data sources: Studies were identified by computerized searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) up to November 2002 and citation review. No language restrictions were applied.

Study selection: Studies were selected if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a cardioprotective drug to placebo or another cardioprotective drug in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery, followed patients over the entire intraoperative period or longer, enrolled at least ten patients per group, initiated the drug regimen no later than 24 hr after surgery, and did not focus on cardiovascular responses during the induction of anesthesia.

Data extraction: Data were extracted in triplicate on trial design, surgical setting, patient characteristics, drug regimens, length of postoperative follow-up, prevalence of previous MI, and outcomes including adverse events. The main outcomes were intraoperative myocardial ischemia, postoperative myocardial ischemia, perioperative nonfatal MI, and cardiac mortality.

Main results: Twenty-one trials with a total of 3,646 patients met the selection criteria. Studied drugs included ß-blockers (11 RCTs, 866 patients), {alpha}2-agonists (six RCTs, 2,614 patients), calcium channel blockers (three RCTs, 121 patients), and nitrates (one RCT, 45 patients). All compared a single cardioprotective drug with placebo. Meta-analyses were only performed for drugs tested in at least two trials. ß-blockers and {alpha}2-agonists reduced intraoperative ischemia; ß-blockers also reduced postoperative ischemia (TableGo). ß-blockers reduced the risk of nonfatal MI (odds ratio [OR] 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.48; TableGo). This effect was not significant when the two trials with extremely high control event rates were excluded. ß-blockers and {alpha}2-agonists reduced the risk of cardiac mortality (TableGo). Again, this effect was not significant for ß-blockers when the single trial with extremely high baseline risk was excluded. ß-blockers and calcium channel blockers increased the risk of bradycardia compared to placebo (TableGo).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE Efficacy of pharmacological interventions versus placebo in preventing perioperative cardiac events
 
Conclusions: Compared to placebo, ß-blockers and {alpha}2-agonists reduce the risk of perioperative cardiac events in patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery; the magnitude of risk reduction with ß-blockers appears to be dependent on the baseline risk.

Funding: Prosper Grant No. 3233-051939.97/2, Swiss National Research Foundation.

Correspondence: Dr. M.R. Tramèr, Division of Anesthesiology, Department APSIC, Geneva University Hospitals, CH-1211 Geneva 14, Switzerland. Email: martin.tramer{at}hcuge.ch


    Commentary by P. J. Devereaux and K. Leslie
 TOP
 Article appraised
 Structured abstract
 Commentary by P. J....
 References
 
There has been limited research evaluating the effectiveness of various pharmacological agents to prevent perioperative cardiovascular events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Dr. Stevens and colleagues, through their systematic review and meta-analyses, have made an important contribution to this area.

Dr. Stevens and colleagues concluded, "this systematic review indicates that ß-blockers and {alpha}2-agonists offer significant protection against cardiac morbidity in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery".1 We, however, caution that a number of considerations raise concerns as to the reliability of their conclusions.

There was an error in their beta-blocker meta-analysis which missed one nonfatal myocardial infarction in one randomized controlled trial (RCT)2 and incorrectly assumed that the myocardial infarctions in another trial, by Wallace and colleagues,3 were nonfatal. Therefore, there were two nonfatal myocardial infarctions in the beta-blocker group and 16 in the placebo group.

The perioperative beta-blocker data, whilst encouraging, should be viewed with skepticism for a number of reasons. First, the treatment effects (i.e., reducing the risk of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction by 75–80%) are implausibly large and inconsistent with other cardiovascular interventions tested in large RCTs. Indeed beta-blocker RCTs of 10,000s of patients in acute myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure have consistently demonstrated relative risk reduction of 20 to 35%. Furthermore, given that several important pathogenic mechanisms, through which perioperative cardiovascular events are thought to occur (e.g., increases in platelet reactivity, plasminogen activator inhibitor I (PAI-I), factor VIII-related antigen levels, and inflammation, and decreases in antithrombin III levels), are unaffected by beta-blockers, relative risk reductions much greater than 25% are not realistic. Second, there have been very few events in the perioperative beta-blocker RCTs (i.e., 20 deaths of which 15 were cardiac and 18 nonfatal myocardial infarctions). To convincingly establish realistic (i.e., 25%) risk reductions, trials need a minimum of 350, and ideally 650, events.4 Third, the results are completely reliant on the results of one small RCT that has several limitations.2 This RCT, by Poldermans and colleagues, included only 112 patients, had very few events (11 deaths and nine nonfatal myocardial infarctions), was unblinded, and stopped after an interim analysis suggested large treatment effects that appear too good to be true (i.e., relative risk reductions of 100% for nonfatal myocardial infarction and 80% for cardiac death). There are strong theoretical reasons and empiric data that caution us to remain skeptical about unexpected large treatment effects in studies terminated early.5 Fourth, when the supportive evidence for an intervention comes from nothing more than a small number of positive trials with very few events, publication bias may seriously distort the evidence.

Similar to the perioperative beta-blocker data the perioperative {alpha}2-agonists data should be considered promising but the results warrant cautious interpretation. The failure of {alpha}2-agonists to demonstrate an effect on nonfatal myocardial infarctions was inconsistent with the reported 50% reduction in the risk of cardiac death. This occurred despite there being four times as many nonfatal myocardial infarctions as there were cardiac deaths.

The systematic review by Stevens and colleagues highlights the need for large adequately powered RCTs to provided definitive evidence regarding the potential benefits and risks of perioperative beta-blockers and {alpha}2-agonists.


    Footnotes
 
Competing interests
Dr. Devereaux is one of the two co-principal investigators of the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation (POISE) Trial, an international 10,000-patient perioperative beta-blocker trial. A/Prof. Leslie is the national coordinator of Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong for the POISE Trial.


    References
 TOP
 Article appraised
 Structured abstract
 Commentary by P. J....
 References
 
1 Stevens RD, Burri H, Tramèr MR. Pharmacologic myocardial protection in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a quantitative systematic review. Anesth Analg 2003; 97: 623–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2 Poldermans D, Boersma E, Bax JJ, et al. The effect of bisoprolol on perioperative mortality and myocardial infarction in high-risk patients undergoing vascular surgery. Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography Study Group. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1789–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

3 Wallace A, Layug B, Tateo I, et al. Prophylactic atenolol reduces postoperative myocardial ischemia. McSPI Research Group. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 7–17.[Medline]

4 Yusuf S, Collins R, Peto R. Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? Stat Med 1984; 3: 409–22.[Medline]

5 Wheatley K, Clayton D. Be skeptical about unexpected large apparent treatment effects: the case of an MRC AML12 randomization. Control Clin Trials 2003; 24: 66–70.[Medline]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Canadian J. AnesthesiaHome page
P.J. Devereaux, K. Leslie, and H. Yang
The effect of perioperative beta-blockers on patients undergoing noncardiac surgery - is the answer in?/L'effet des beta-blo-quants perioperatoires sur les patients de chirurgie non cardiaque - avons-nous la reponse ?
Can J Anesth, October 1, 2004; 51(8): 749 - 755.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Devereaux, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Leslie, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Devereaux, P. J.
Right arrow Articles by Leslie, K.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS