IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0279171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cardio-selective versus non-selective β-blockers for cardiovascular events and mortality in long-term dialysis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Shaohua Tao
  • Junlin Huang
  • Jie Xiao
  • Guibao Ke
  • Ping Fu

Abstract

Background: Trials in patients receiving dialysis have demonstrated that β-blockers reduce all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events. However, differences still exist within-class comparative effectiveness studies of the therapeutic benefits of β-blockers in dialysis patients. Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to examine whether cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality differed between dialysis patients receiving cardio-selective and non-selective agents. Methods: A comprehensive search of relevant articles from the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed up to September 4, 2022, we included adults receiving β-blockers to evaluate the effects of cardio-selective versus non-selective agents on mortality and cardiovascular events in the dialysis population. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were examined for the negative outcomes of cardiovascular events and death for any reason. The risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using Cochrane’s risk of bias tool and the risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using a table designed according to the ROBINS-I tool, the evidence grade was assessed using the GRADE guideline. For all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events, the RevMan software (version 5.3) was used to calculate pooled HRs with 95% CI. The heterogeneity (I2) in statistics was used to examine the degree of heterogeneity among studies. Results: Four observational studies, including 58, 652 long-term dialysis patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to dialysis patients who took non-selective β-blockers, who took cardio-selective β-blockers was probably associated with fewer cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81, 0.89, heterogeneity [I2] = 0%, three trials, 52,077 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and may have lower all-cause mortality (HR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.69, 0.99, I2 = 91%, four trials, 54,115 participants, low-quality evidence). Conclusions: This systematic review showed that cardio-selective β-blockers are probably associated with fewer cardiovascular events and may have lower all-cause mortality in long-term dialysis patients than non-selective β-blockers. The present study results need to be replicated using randomized controlled trials with longer observation durations.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaohua Tao & Junlin Huang & Jie Xiao & Guibao Ke & Ping Fu, 2022. "Cardio-selective versus non-selective β-blockers for cardiovascular events and mortality in long-term dialysis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0279171
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279171
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0279171
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0279171&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0279171?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0279171. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.