You are on page 1of 8

The American Journal of Medicine (2007) 120, 685-692

CLINICAL RESEARCH STUDY

Impact of Acute Beta-Blocker Therapy for Patients with NonST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Chadwick D. Miller, MD,a Matthew T. Roe, MD, MHS,b Jyotsna Mulgund, MS,b James W. Hoekstra, MD,a Renato Santos, MD,a Charles V. Pollack, Jr., MD, MA,c E. Magnus Ohman, MD,b W. Brian Gibler, MD,d Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPHb
Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC; bDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC; cPennsylvania Hospital, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia; dUniversity of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio. ABSTRACT PURPOSE: Early use of beta-blockers is a quality indicator for the treatment of patients with nonSTsegment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), despite limited data from randomized clinical trials in this population. We sought to determine the impact of acute beta-blocker therapy on outcomes in patients with NSTEMI. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We examined acute (24 hours) beta-blocker use in 72,054 patients with NSTEMI from the Can Rapid Risk Stratication of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines (CRUSADE) initiative at 509 US hospitals from 2001-2004. We analyzed patient and provider factors associated with beta-blocker use and the impact of beta-blocker therapy on unadjusted, risk-adjusted, and propensity matched outcomes in the overall sample and among selected high-risk subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 82.5% of patients without documented contraindications received acute betablocker therapy. Factors strongly associated with acute beta-blocker use included prior beta-blocker use, higher presenting systolic blood pressure, lower heart rate, lack of signs of heart failure, and cardiology care. Acute beta-blocker use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (unadjusted 3.9% vs 6.9%, P .001, adjusted odds ratio 0.66, 95% condence interval 0.60-0.72), lower adjusted mortality among most of 6 subgroups determined by propensity to receive acute beta-blockers, and lower adjusted mortality in patients with and without signs of heart failure and in those 80 years and those 80 years old. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of NSTEMI patients receive acute beta-blocker therapy. Certain patient subgroups remain undertreated. Because treatment with acute beta-blockers was associated with improved clinical outcomes in nearly all patient subgroups assessed, broader use in patients with NSTEMI appears warranted. 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. KEYWORDS: Acute coronary syndromes; Beta blockers; Guidelines; Patient care
a

Medications that inhibit the -adrenergic receptor have become widely accepted therapy for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction and congestive heart
CRUSADE is funded by the Schering-Plough Corporation. BristolMyers Squibb/Sano Pharmaceuticals Partnership provides additional funding support. Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. also funded this work. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Eric Peterson, MD, MPH, Duke Clinical Research Institute, 2400 Pratt Street, Room 7009, Durham, NC 27705. E-mail address: peter016@mc.duke.edu

failure. Randomized clinical trials performed before the reperfusion era for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction demonstrated that beta-blockers improved early clinical outcomes.1,2 A subsequent trial in patients with nonST-segment myocardial infarction treated with brinolytics demonstrated that immediate beta-blocker use was associated with a lower incidence of recurrent ischemic events compared with delayed use.3 A more contemporary trial demonstrated that beta-blockers signicantly reduce mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in patients

0002-9343/$ -see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.04.016

686

The American Journal of Medicine, Vol 120, No 8, August 2007

with left ventricular systolic dysfunction within 3-21 days one of the following high-risk features: ST-segment depresof an acute myocardial infarction.4 Despite the broad bension 0.5 mm, transient ST-segment elevation 0.5-1.0 mm ets demonstrated across these studies, the recently com(lasting for 10 minutes), or positive cardiac markers (elpleted Clopidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction evated troponin I or T or creatine kinase-MB greater than Trial/Second Chinese Cardiac Study (COMMIT/CCS-2) the upper limit of normal for the local laboratory assay). demonstrated an early hazard and Patients transferring into a particno mortality benet when betaipating hospital 24 hours after blockers were administered within their last ischemic episode are not CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE 24 hours of acute ST-segment eleligible for inclusion. 5 evation myocardial infarction. Of 115,950 patients included in The use of beta-blockers in patients with The updated American College CRUSADE between 2001 and 2004 nonST-segment elevation myocardial of Cardiology/American Heart at 509 US hospitals, the following infarction is associated with reduced Association (ACC/AHA) guidewere excluded from this analysis: mortality and improved outcomes. lines for the management of pa35,399 who transferred into or out tients with unstable angina and of a participating hospital, 13,104 Although the majority of patients with nonST-segment myocardial inwithout positive cardiac markers, nonST-segment elevation myocardial farction designate acute (24 hours) 1019 who did not have acute medinfarction receive beta-blockers, highuse of beta-blockers as a class I ications recorded, 209 who had inrisk patients are less likely to receive recommendation. This is largely complete information on acute this therapy. based on extrapolation from earbeta-blocker use, and 7269 with Further efforts are needed to reduce lier beta-blocker studies that prilisted contraindications to betamarily enrolled patients with STblockers (bradycardia, 1st degree treatment gaps for the use of blockers segment elevation myocardial atrioventricular block, cardiogenic for acute myocardial infarction. infarction, because few randomshock, hypotension, and chronic ized trials of beta-blocker use for obstructive pulmonary disease or acute myocardial infarction have asthma). The remaining analysis included patients with nonST-segment elevation myocarpopulation included 72,054 patients. dial infarction.1-7 However, given the concerns raised by the Clinical Endpoint Denitions ndings of the COMMIT/CCS-2 trial about the early use of Clinical endpoints included all-cause mortality during the beta-blockers for acute myocardial infarction, we evaluated index hospitalization, post-admission infarction, in-hospital the use of acute beta-blockers for patients with nonSTheart failure, and cardiogenic shock. Post-admission infarcsegment elevation myocardial infarction. Using data from tion was dened as patients who: the Can Rapid Risk Stratication of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementa Demonstrated no cardiac biomarker evidence of infarction of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) Initiative, tion at the time of presentation but then had subsequent we sought to: describe contemporary patterns of acute use cardiac biomarker elevation or electrocardiographic eviof beta-blockers in patients with nonST-segment elevation dence of infarction; myocardial infarction; determine patient, provider, and hos Had initial infarction at presentation and then experienced pital factors associated with acute beta-blocker use; and a second increase of biomarkers greater than the upper determine the impact of acute beta-blocker use on clinical limit of normal (if most recent biomarkers were less than outcomes in the overall sample, among propensity groups, the upper limit of normal) or experienced a biomarker and among specic high-risk subgroups. increase 50% above the most recent value if most recent biomarkers were greater than the upper limit of normal; METHODS Within 24 hours of percutaneous coronary intervention, Patients meeting inclusion criteria for CRUSADE were experienced a 50% increase in preprocedural biomarker identied locally by each site. Data collected included palevels or an increase in biomarkers 3 upper limit of tient and hospital characteristics, use of acute medications normal (if preprocedural biomarkers were less than the (within 24 hours of presentation), medication contraindicaupper limit of normal); or tions, use and timing of invasive cardiac procedures, labo Within 24 hours of coronary artery bypass grafting, exratory results, in-hospital outcomes, and discharge therapies perienced an increase in biomarkers 5 upper limit of and interventions. normal or develop new Q waves on ECG.

Inclusion Criteria and Analysis Population


For inclusion in CRUSADE, patients must present to a participating institution with acute ischemic symptoms lasting 10 minutes in the preceding 24 hours, and have at least

In-hospital heart failure was dened as signs, symptoms, and radiographic ndings of heart failure that began after the initial history and physical examination or heart failure that recurred after initial signs of heart failure at presenta-

Miller et al

Beta-Blocker Therapy in NSTEMI

687

tion resolved. Cardiogenic shock was dened as persistent hypotension (systolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg) with signs of end-organ dysfunction such as oliguria, altered mental status, or poor peripheral perfusion. Nonfatal endpoints were reported by sites and were not centrally adjudicated.

RESULTS
A total of 82.5% of patients received acute beta-blockers. Patients who received acute beta-blockers were younger, more commonly male, had prior myocardial infarction, were more commonly taking prior beta-blockers, were cared for by cardiologists at academic hospitals, and less commonly had prior or current heart failure (Table 1). The independent factors associated with acute beta-blocker use are listed in Table 2. Patients treated with acute beta-blockers more commonly received other acute medical therapies and more commonly underwent invasive cardiac procedures (Table 3). In the overall sample, patients treated with acute betablockers had lower rates of unadjusted and adjusted in-hospital mortality (3.9% vs 6.9%, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.66, 95% condence interval [CI], 0.60-0.72), reinfarction (3.0% vs 3.6%, AOR 0.80, 95% CI, 0.72-0.89), and cardiogenic shock (2.1% vs 3.2%, AOR 0.76, 95% CI, 0.67-0.87) compared with patients not treated with acute beta-blockers. No difference in the unadjusted or adjusted risk of congestive heart failure was demonstrated (9.0% vs 9.7%, AOR 1.00, 95% CI, 0.92-1.08). Similar ndings were noted in subgroups such as those with and without signs of congestive heart failure on presentation and those 80 years of age and those 80 years of age (Figure 1). Acute beta-blocker use was associated with a signicantly lower risk of adjusted mortality across groups of patients categorized based upon the propensity to receive acute beta-blockers, except for the group with the greatest propensity to receive acute beta-blockers where a nonsignicant reduction in adjusted mortality was demonstrated (Figure 2).

Statistical Methods
For the descriptive analysis, patient baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, care patterns, and in-hospital outcomes were compared between patients who received betablockers versus those who did not. Medians and 25th and 75th percentiles were reported for continuous variables, and percentages were reported for categorical variables. The Wilcoxon test for continuous variables and the chisquared test for categorical variables were used to test for differences. We analyzed variables associated with acute use of betablockers using a logistic generalized estimating equations method.8 The generalized estimating equation method is used to adjust for correlations among clustered responses (ie, within hospital correlations for responses) where patients at the same hospital were more likely to have similar responses relative to patients in other hospitals. Variables in the model included patient demographics, presentation factors including prior use of beta-blockers, medical history, and certain hospital characteristics. Heart rate and age were entered into the model as continuous variables with linear splines to account for variations in the effect of the variable on beta-blocker use within different ranges of the continuous variables. Univariate analyses were then conducted to determine which of these factors could be expected to have an independent effect on beta-blocker use. All variables were then tested in multivariable analyses and results were evaluated in a stepwise fashion, sequentially eliminating nonsignicant variables considered clinically unimportant by the investigators and retaining signicant variables considered to be of explanatory importance. Finally, the association between acute beta-blocker therapy and in-hospital clinical outcomes also was assessed using the logistic generalized estimating equation method. Results were analyzed in 3 ways overall, within high-risk subgroups, and within 6 strata of patients determined by the propensity to receive acute beta-blockers. The models used to determine adjusted clinical outcomes included patient demographics (age, sex, race), presenting characteristics (congestive heart failure, positive cardiac markers, systolic blood pressure, heart rate), medical history (family history, dyslipidemia, hypertension, renal insufciency, prior myocardial infarction, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, prior percutaneous coronary intervention, prior stroke, prior congestive heart failure, current smoking, diabetes), and hospital characteristics (bed size, region, capabilities for invasive cardiac procedures and academic, teaching status). A P value .05 was considered statistically signicant for all tests. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS software (version 8.2, SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

DISCUSSION
Our results show that more than 80% of eligible patients with nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were treated with acute beta-blockers within 24 hours of hospital presentation. Patients who received acute beta-blockers were more likely to have been receiving beta-blockers prior to hospitalization, have stable hemodynamic features, and receive care on a cardiology inpatient service. Use of acute beta-blockers was associated with a lower adjusted risk of adverse outcomes across different patient subgroups and propensity groups. Recent clinical trials include the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) trial that evaluated the use of oral betablockers within 3-21 days after acute myocardial infarction (both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction and demonstrated a signicant reduction in long-term (1 year) mortality, reinfarction, and arrhythmias.4,9-12 In contrast, the COMMIT/ CCS-2 trial demonstrated an early hazard (increased risk of hypotension, bradycardia, CHF, and cardiogenic shock)

688
Table 1

The American Journal of Medicine, Vol 120, No 8, August 2007


Patient and Hospital Characteristics by Acute Beta-Blocker Use No Acute Beta-Blockers (n 12,612) 71 (58, 80) 42.5 79.1 27.3 (23.7, 31.5) 66.5 33.8 24.7 41.0 32.4 14.6 12.0 27.8 22.3 19.3 18.8 28.7 6.5 28.3 141 (120, 161) 84 (70, 100) 48.4 25.7 21.0 41.3 44.1 7.9 Acute Beta-Blockers (n 59,442) 69 (57, 79) 40.1 78.9 27.6 (24.3, 31.9) 71.5 33.7 25.5 48.8 34.4 15.1 11.3 31.8 19.4 21.3 21.1 32.3 5.9 24.0 147 (128, 168) 84 (72, 100) 53.7 30.5 44.6 44.7 41.3 6.4 P Value .001 .001 .12 .001 .001 .95 .10 .001 .001 .022 .024 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .003 .001 .001 .001 .001

Patient Characteristics Demographics Age (years)* Women (%) White (%) Body mass index* Medical history Hypertension (%) Diabetes mellitus (%) Current smoking (%) Hyperlipidemia (%) Family history of coronary artery disease (%) Renal insufciency (%) Prior stroke (%) Prior myocardial infarction (%) Prior congestive heart failure (%) Prior percutaneous coronary intervention (%) Prior coronary artery bypass grafting (%) Presenting characteristics ST depression (%) Transient ST-elevation (%) Signs of CHF (%) Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg)* Heart rate (beats per minute)* Other features Cardiology service (%) Academic hospital (%) Prior beta-blocker use (%) Insurance status (%) HMO/Private Medicare Medicaid

CHF congestive heart failure; HMO health maintenance organization. *Presented as median (25th, 75th percentile). Creatinine 2.0 mg/dL, calculated creatinine clearance 30 mL/min, or need for chronic renal dialysis. Admission to a cardiology inpatient service. Member of the Council of Teaching Hospitals.

coupled with early benets (decreased risk of ventricular brillation and reinfarction) with immediate use of betablockers for patients with acute myocardial infarction (93% had ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction).8 However, follow-up in the COMMIT/CCS-2 trial was limited to the hospitalization period, which was no longer than 28 days; close to half of the patients did not receive reperfusion therapy, use of catheterization and revascularization procedures was not permitted, and no mortality benet was demonstrated.5 In contrast to randomized clinical trials that often include patients with both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, our patient population represents a true nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction cohort. In this analysis we have shown improved in-hospital outcomes with acute betablockers in a contemporary population of patients with nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated in routine practice who commonly received other evidencebased medications and underwent revascularization proce-

dures. Although our results may be limited by the lack of follow-up after discharge, other observational studies have shown discharge use of beta-blockers in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) is associated with reduced mortality, even among those who underwent revascularization procedures.13,14 Results from CRUSADE supplement evidence from randomized clinical trials by showing that acute beta-blockers are benecial for patients with nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and are consistent with other registry data. The National Cooperative Cardiovascular Project retrospectively evaluated the impact of beta-blocker prescribing at hospital discharge on long-term mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarctions. Among these Medicare patients, beta-blocker prescribing at discharge was associated with a 14% decrease in mortality at 1 year.13 Subgroup analysis of this population demonstrated a similar mortality benet to beta-blocker use among patients with

Miller et al
Table 2 Variable

Beta-Blocker Therapy in NSTEMI


Factors Associated with Acute Beta-Blocker Use

689 studies that found reduced long-term mortality with betablockers in the elderly and those with congestive heart failure or left ventricular systolic dysfunction, but we also have shown that older patients and those with congestive heart failure were less likely to receive acute beta-blockers.4,14,15 Clinicians may have concerns about using acute beta-blockers in these types of patients with acute myocardial infarction, given the increased risk of shock and hypotension seen with beta-blockers in prior trials, especially among patients with signs of congestive heart failure (who have high baseline risks of adverse outcomes) and very elderly patients (who were not commonly enrolled in randomized trials of acute beta-blockers).5,16,17 Although we acknowledge these concerns, our ndings suggest that these high-risk patients benet from acute beta-blocker use. However, it is important not to extrapolate these ndings to patients with cardiogenic shock, as these patients were excluded from our analysis. In order to enhance patient care, further studies are needed to delineate factors limiting the use of beta-blockers in certain populations. Through this information, interventions can be designed to improve betablocker use in undertreated subgroups that may receive a greater relative benet from this treatment.18 Signicant knowledge decits exist about the use of beta-blockers in patients with nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Most investigations have not evaluated only patients with nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and, thus, the evidence for benet in this population has been limited. Our results from over 72,000 patients with denite nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction prove the administration of beta-blockers in the rst 24 hours is associated with mortality benet at the time

2
927 241 112 108

Adjusted OR 3.36 1.06 0.76

95% CI 3.11-3.64 1.05-1.06 0.72-0.80

Prior beta-blocker use SBP (per 10 mm Hg increase) Signs of congestive heart failure Heart rate* Heart rate 60 beats per minute Heart rate 60 to 100 beats per minute Heart rate 100 beats per minute Prior congestive heart failure Cardiology inpatient service Prior PCI Insurance coverage Medicare Medicaid Self-insurance Age* Age 55 years Age 55-64 years Age 65-74 years Age 75-84 years Age 85 years ECG ndings ST depression Transient ST elevation ST depression Transient ST elevation Academic hospital Male sex Hyperlipidemia Family history of CAD Renal insufciency

1.018 1.010 0.997 75 46 45 30 0.78 1.25 0.81 0.96 0.78 1.08 30 1.002 0.990 0.989 1.001 1.003 23 1.12 1.15 1.23 8 8 7 4 4 1.30 1.06 1.07 1.05 0.95

1.011-1.025 1.008-1.012 0.996-0.999 0.73-0.82 1.17-1.33 0.77-0.87 0.91-1.01 0.72-0.86 0.98-1.19 0.995-1.009 0.980-0.999 0.980-0.997 0.992-1.009 0.991-1.015 1.07-1.17 1.03-1.28 1.03-1.47 1.09-1.55 1.02-1.11 1.02-1.12 1.00-1.11 0.89-1.00

CAD coronary artery disease; CI condence interval; PCI percutaneous coronary intervention. *Heart rate and age entered into model as continuous variables with no reference group, but linear splines were performed for each variable to account for variations in the slope of the distribution of the variables within each listed segment. 2 values represent strength of the association of the overall variable. Compared with health maintenance organization/private insurance. Compared with neither ST depression nor transient ST elevation. Member of the Council of Teaching Hospitals. Creatinine 2.0 mg/dL, calculated creatinine clearance 30 mL/min, or need for chronic renal dialysis.

Table 3 Concomitant Acute (24 h) Medications and Invasive Procedures by Acute Beta-Blocker Use* No Acute Beta-Blockers (n 12,612) 84.3% 32.1% 73.1% 25.6% 62.2% 26.2% 27.3 (12.8, 53.9) 36.5% 16.5% 25.6 (8.8, 51.2) 11.4% Acute Beta-Blockers (n 59,442) 94.7% 47.5% 86.7% 40.8% 75.2% 34.5% 25.2 (11.9, 49.4) 45.5% 22.6% 23.0 (7.5, 47.3) 13.3%

Variable Aspirin Clopidogrel Heparin (any) Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor Cardiac catheterization Cath 24 h of arrival Arrival to cath (h) PCI PCI 24 h of arrival Arrival to PCI (h) Coronary artery bypass grafting

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and nonSTsegment elevation myocardial infarction at 2 years.15 Previous analyses that showed enhanced benet with betablockers among high-risk subgroups of patients with acute myocardial infarction led us to evaluate the benet of acute beta-blocker use in patient subpopulations, including the elderly and those with congestive heart failure on arrival.1-4,15 In CRUSADE, we found similar benets with acute betablocker therapy in younger vs. older patients and for patients with and without signs of congestive heart failure on presentation. Our results are similar to those from other

Cath catheterization; other abbreviations as in previous tables. *Only subjects without contraindications for each medication are included. Values are median (25th, 75th percentile).

690

The American Journal of Medicine, Vol 120, No 8, August 2007

Figure 1 Adjusted risk of in-hospital clinical outcomes by acute beta-blocker use. Patients in the congestive heart failure (CHF) group had signs of CHF upon hospital presentation.

of hospital discharge. This information augments the results from the National Cooperative Cardiovascular Project showing that patients with nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who are discharged on beta-blockers have

a lower mortality rate at 2 years.15 Although registry data cannot take the place of a randomized clinical trial, it represents the best available information at this time. Coupling these results together, patients with nonST-segment eleva-

Figure 2 Adjusted risk of in-hospital mortality among propensity groups. Patients were categorized into 6 equal groups based upon the propensity to receive acute beta-blockers ranging from those with the lowest propensity (Group 1, 66.5%) to those with the highest propensity (Group 6, 92.4%).

Miller et al

Beta-Blocker Therapy in NSTEMI

691 dial infarction, and additional studies are needed to clarify the optimal timing for initiating beta-blocker therapy based upon patient risk factors and hemodynamic status.

tion myocardial infarction without contraindications should be treated acutely and over the long term with beta-blocker medications. As an observational, retrospective analysis, certain limitations were present. First, hospitals included in CRUSADE were actively seeking to improve performance and may not be representative of all US hospitals. Second, although we excluded patients with contraindications to acute betablocker use, undocumented contraindications may explain the nonuse of acute beta-blockers in at least a portion of the 17.5% of patients who did not receive them, especially because these patients were more likely to have lower blood pressure and signs of congestive heart failure. Furthermore, because prior beta-blocker use was the factor most strongly associated with acute beta-blocker use, previous tolerance to beta-blockers may have driven the continued use of beta-blockers during the acute care period, rather than specic indications for beta-blocker use from the new, acute ischemic event that prompted hospitalization. Third, although we evaluated the impact of acute betablockers on adjusted clinical outcomes with multiple techniques, our results were likely inuenced by unmeasured confounders. Fourth, we did not collect data on the dose, type, or method of administration (intravenous or oral) of acute beta-blockers and, thus, could not ascertain how these features inuenced the results. Furthermore, data collection was limited to the in-hospital period, so we could not determine the long-term impact of acute beta-blocker use. Fifth, post-admission infarction was dened as any elevation in cardiac biomarkers after admission. This denition does not discriminate between those patients presenting with a myocardial infarction in evolution and those who had an event after arrival to the hospital. An additional limitation is the exclusion of transferred patients, which could reduce the generalizability of our ndings. Finally, hospitals were encouraged to submit data on consecutive patients, but privacy regulations prevented verication of consecutive patient inclusion. The majority of eligible patients with nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in contemporary practice were treated with beta-blockers 24 hours from arrival. High-risk patients were less likely to receive this therapy even though the benecial impact of beta-blockers was seen across patient subgroups and did not vary signicantly by the propensity to receive beta-blockers. Although quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction (both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) recommend beta-blockers within 24 hours, contraindications are not specied and the highest-risk patients with the greatest predicted benet from beta-blockers may not be clearly targeted within these quality recommendations.19 Thus, further efforts are needed to reduce treatment gaps for the use of beta-blockers for acute myocar-

References
1. Randomised trial of intravenous atenolol among 16,027 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-1. First International Study of Infarct Survival Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1986;2:57-66. 2. Metoprolol in acute myocardial infarction (MIAMI). A randomised placebo-controlled international trial. The MIAMI Trial Research Group. Eur Heart J. 1985;6:199-226. 3. Roberts R, Rogers WJ, Mueller HS, et al. Immediate versus deferred beta-blockade following thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) II-B Study. Circulation. 1991;83:422-437. 4. Dargie HJ. Effect of carvedilol on outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: the CAPRICORN randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;357:1385-1390. 5. Chen ZM, Pan HC, Chen YP, et al; COMMIT (ClOpidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial) collaborative group. Early intravenous then oral metoprolol in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 366:1622-1632. 6. Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, et al; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association. Committee on the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction--summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40: 1366-1374. 7. Yusuf S, Peto R, Lewis J, et al. Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1985;27:335-371. 8. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73:13-22. 9. Hjalmarson A, Goldstein S, Fagerberg B, et al. Effects of controlledrelease metoprolol on total mortality, hospitalizations, and well-being in patients with heart failure: the Metoprolol CR/XL Randomized Intervention Trial in congestive heart failure (MERIT-HF). MERIT-HF Study Group. JAMA. 2000;283:1295-1302. 10. The Cardiac Insufciency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;353:9-13. 11. Packer M, Fowler MB, Roecker EB, et al; Carvedilol Prospective Randomized Cumulative Survival (COPERNICUS) Study Group. Effect of carvedilol on the morbidity of patients with severe chronic heart failure: results of the carvedilol prospective randomized cumulative survival (COPERNICUS) study. Circulation. 2002;106: 2194-2199. 12. McMurray J, Kober L, Robertson M, et al. Antiarrhythmic effect of carvedilol after acute myocardial infarction: results of the Carvedilol Post-Infarct Survival Control in Left Ventricular Dysfunction (CAPRICORN) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:525-530. 13. Krumholz HM, Radford MJ, Wang Y, et al. National use and effectiveness of -blockers for the treatment of elderly patients after acute myocardial infarction: National Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA. 1998;280:623-629. 14. Chen J, Radford MJ, Wang Y, et al. Are -blockers effective in elderly patients who undergo coronary revascularization after acute myocardial infarction? Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:947-952. 15. Gottlieb SS, McCarter RJ, Vogel RA. Effect of beta-blockade on mortality among high-risk and low-risk patients after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:489-497.

692
16. Steg PG, Dabbous OH, Feldman LJ, et al; Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Investigators. Determinants and prognostic impact of heart failure complicating acute coronary syndromes: observations from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Circulation. 2004;109:494-499. 17. Forman DE, Bernal JL, Wei JY. Management of acute myocardial infarction in the very elderly. Am J Med. 1992;93:315-326. 18. Bradley EH, Holmboe ES, Mattera JA, et al. A qualitative study of increasing beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction: why do some hospitals succeed? JAMA. 2001;285:2604-2611.

The American Journal of Medicine, Vol 120, No 8, August 2007


19. Krumholz HM, Anderson JL, Brooks NH, et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures; Writing Committee to Develop Performance Measures on ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. ACC/AHA clinical performance measures for adults with ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on performance measures (writing committee to develop performance measures on ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction). Circulation. 2006;113:732-761.