Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2016
Nebivolol versus Carvedilol or Metoprolol in Patients Presenting with Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Left Ventricular Dysfunction.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ozaydin Mehmet, Yucel Habil, Kocyigit Sule, Adali Mehmet Koray, Aksoy Fatih, Kahraman Fatih, Uysal Bayram Ali, Erdogan Dogan, Varol Ercan, Dogan Abdullah
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of nebivolol, carvedilol or metoprolol succinate on the outcome of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by left ventricular dysfunction.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 172, aged 28-87 years) with AMI and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.45 were randomized to the nebivolol (n = 55), carvedilol (n = 60) and metoprolol succinate (n = 57) groups. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and composite event rates of nonfatal MI, cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization due to unstable angina pectoris or heart failure, stroke or revascularization during the 12-month follow-up were compared among the groups using the x03C7;2 test, t test or log-rank test as appropriate.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in the three groups. The composite end point during follow-up was lower in the patients treated with nebivolol than those treated with metoprolol (14.5 vs. 31.5%; p = 0.03). However, event rates were similar between the patients treated with carvedilol and those treated with the metoprolol (20.3 vs. 31.5%, p > 0.05) and between the patients treated with nebivolol and carvedilol (14.5 vs. 20.3%, p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The patients treated with nebivolol experienced 12-month cardiovascular events at a lower rate than those treated with metoprolol succinate. However, event rates were similar between the carvedilol and the metoprolol succinate groups and between the nebivolol and the carvedilol groups.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 172, aged 28-87 years) with AMI and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤0.45 were randomized to the nebivolol (n = 55), carvedilol (n = 60) and metoprolol succinate (n = 57) groups. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and composite event rates of nonfatal MI, cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization due to unstable angina pectoris or heart failure, stroke or revascularization during the 12-month follow-up were compared among the groups using the x03C7;2 test, t test or log-rank test as appropriate.
RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar in the three groups. The composite end point during follow-up was lower in the patients treated with nebivolol than those treated with metoprolol (14.5 vs. 31.5%; p = 0.03). However, event rates were similar between the patients treated with carvedilol and those treated with the metoprolol (20.3 vs. 31.5%, p > 0.05) and between the patients treated with nebivolol and carvedilol (14.5 vs. 20.3%, p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The patients treated with nebivolol experienced 12-month cardiovascular events at a lower rate than those treated with metoprolol succinate. However, event rates were similar between the carvedilol and the metoprolol succinate groups and between the nebivolol and the carvedilol groups.