Cited by 579Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesHeart rate and cardiovascular health

Efficacy of β blockers in patients with heart failure plus atrial fibrillation: an individual-patient data meta-analysis

Open access
Kotecha, Dipak, Holmes, Jane, Krum, Henry, Altman, Douglas G, Manzano, Luis, Cleland, John G F, Lip, Gregory Y H, Coats, Andrew J S +8 more·2014·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Atrial fibrillation and heart failure often coexist, causing substantial cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. β blockers are indicated in patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; however, the efficacy of these drugs in patients with concomitant atrial fibrillation is uncertain. We therefore meta-analysed individual-patient data to assess the efficacy of β blockers in patients with heart failure and sinus rhythm compared with atrial fibrillation.Methods We extracted individual-patient data from ten randomised controlled trials of the comparison of β blockers versus placebo in heart failure. The presence of sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation was ascertained from the baseline electrocardiograph. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. Outcome data were meta-analysed with an adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression. The study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT0083244, and PROSPERO, number CRD42014010012.Findings 18,254 patients were assessed, and of these 13,946 (76%) had sinus rhythm and 3066 (17%) had atrial fibrillation at baseline. Crude death rates over a mean follow-up of 1·5 years (SD 1·1) were 16% (2237 of 13,945) in patients with sinus rhythm and 21% (633 of 3064) in patients with atrial fibrillation. β-blocker therapy led to a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in patients with sinus rhythm (hazard ratio 0·73, 0·67-0·80; p<0·001), but not in patients with atrial fibrillation (0·97, 0·83-1·14; p=0·73), with a significant p value for interaction of baseline rhythm (p=0·002). The lack of efficacy for the primary outcome was noted in all subgroups of atrial fibrillation, including age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, New York Heart Association class, heart rate, and baseline medical therapy.Interpretation Based on our findings, β blockers should not be used preferentially over other rate-control medications and not regarded as standard therapy to improve prognosis in patients with concomitant heart failure and atrial fibrillation.Funding Menarini Farmaceutica Internazionale (administrative support grant).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)61373-8

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kotecha, D., Holmes, J., Krum, H., Altman, D. G., Manzano, L., Cleland, J. G. F., Lip, G. Y. H., Coats, A. J. S., Andersson, B., Kirchhof, P., von Lueder, T. G., Wedel, H., Rosano, G., Shibata, M. C., Rigby, A., & Flather, M. D.
Affiliations
  • Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • University of Hull (GB)
  • Sandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
  • Nordic School of Public Health (SE)
  • IRCCS San Raffaele Roma (IT)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Castle Hill Hospital (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
Corresponding author
Kotecha, Dipak
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-12
Volume
384
Issue
9961
Pages
2235-2243
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2154650976
Cited by
579
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 68 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 44 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 7
FWCI
9.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (CL-2012-09-001, NF-SI-0611-10227)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart rate and cardiovascular health
Keywords
beta-blockers, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, all-cause mortality, sinus rhythm, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, rate control, subgroup interaction, cardiovascular prognosis, NYHA functional class, left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
MeSH terms
Adrenergic beta-Antagonists, Atrial Fibrillation, Electrocardiography, Heart Failure, Humans, Length of Stay, Patient Admission, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Stroke

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review