Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
32 References (32 articles) Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to systematically analyse the effects of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing any type of surgery while under general anaesthesia. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials by searching the following databases from the date of their inception until June 2013: MEDLINE, Embase , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Biosis Previews, CAB Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Derwent Drug File, Science Citation Index Expanded, Life Sciences Collection, Global Health and PASCAL. In addition, we searched online resources to identify grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials if participants were randomly assigned to a beta-blocker group or a control group (standard care or placebo). Surgery (any type) had to be performed with all or at least a significant proportion of participants under general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from all studies. In cases of disagreement, we reassessed the respective studies to reach consensus. We computed summary estimates in the absence of significant clinical heterogeneity. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) were used for continuous outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses for various potential effect modifiers. MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 randomized controlled trials with 19,161 participants. Six studies (7%) met the highest methodological quality criteria (studies with overall low risk of bias: adequate sequence generation, adequate allocation concealment, double/triple-blinded design with a placebo group, intention-to-treat analysis), whereas in the remaining trials, some form of bias was present or could not be definitively excluded (studies with overall unclear or high risk of bias). Outcomes were evaluated separately for cardiac and non-cardiac surgery.CARDIAC SURGERY (53 trials)We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• All-cause mortality: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.52, 3783 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Acute myocardial infarction (AMI): RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51, 3553 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.05, 166 participants, low quality evidence.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.02, 1400 participants, low quality evidence.• Hypotension: RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.51, 558 participants, low quality evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.66, 660 participants, low quality evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.34, 311 participants, low quality evidence.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.58, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 29, 2292 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.53, NNTB five, 6420 participants, high quality evidence.• On average, beta-blockers reduced length of hospital stay by 0.54 days (95% CI -0.90 to -0.19, 2450 participants, low quality evidence).NON-CARDIAC SURGERY (35 trials)Beta-blockers significantly increased the occurrence of the following adverse events.• All-cause mortality: RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.57, 11,413 participants, low quality of evidence, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 167.• Hypotension: RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.64, NNTH 16, 10,947 participants, high quality evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.36, NNTH 21, 11,033 participants, moderate quality evidence.We found a potential increase in the occurrence of the following outcomes with the use of beta-blockers.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.71, 9150 participants, low quality evidence.Whereas no clear evidence of an effect was found when all studies were analysed, restricting the meta-analysis to low risk of bias studies revealed a significant increase in cerebrovascular events with the use of beta-blockers: RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.82, NNTH 265, 8648 participants.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• AMI: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87, NNTB 76, 10,958 participants, high quality evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77, NNTB nine, 978 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, NNTB 112, 8744 participants, high quality evidence.We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.49, 476 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.48, 9173 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Length of hospital stay: mean difference -0.45 days, 95% CI -1.75 to 0.84, 551 participants, low quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: According to our findings, perioperative application of beta-blockers still plays a pivotal role in cardiac surgery, as they can substantially reduce the high burden of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias in the aftermath of surgery. Their influence on mortality, AMI, stroke, congestive heart failure, hypotension and bradycardia in this setting remains unclear.In non-cardiac surgery, evidence shows an association of beta-blockers with increased all-cause mortality. Data from low risk of bias trials further suggests an increase in stroke rate with the use of beta-blockers. As the quality of evidence is still low to moderate, more evidence is needed before a definitive conclusion can be drawn. The substantial reduction in supraventricular arrhythmias and AMI in this setting seems to be offset by the potential increase in mortality and stroke.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Authors Hong Z , Wu T , Zhou S , Huang B , Wang J , Jin D , Geng D
Journal Journal of human hypertension
Year 2018
Loading references information
ABSTRACT: Uncertainties still remain in terms of the efficacy of anti-hypertensive treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular (CV) events within prehypertensive levels. This review aims to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-hypertensives on the CV risks in populations within prehypertensive levels. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning active treatment vs placebo in populations within prehypertensive levels were identified through electronic database and manual search. Outcomes included the first co-primary outcomes, stroke, heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. The first co-primary outcomes were defined as composite cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in the included studies. A total of 29 RCTs involving 127,641 participants were identified. Pooled analysis showed active treatment was associated with a significant 7% reduction in risk of the first co-primary outcomes, 14% in stroke, and 10% in HF as compared to placebo (0.86, 0.77-0.96; 0.93, 0.89-0.98; and 0.90, 0.83-0.97). However, there were no significant reductions in risk of MI, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. A significant reduction in risk of the first co-primary outcomes was observed in subpopulations with systolic blood pressure (SBP) 130-139 mmHg (0.94, 0.89-0.99) or prior CVDs (0.88, 0.82-0.94). Meta-regression analyses showed no significant relative risk reductions proportional to the magnitude of the mean baseline BP, mean on-treatment BP, the mean absolute change in BP, the proportion of patients with hypertension, and mean age. In summary, anti-hypertensive treatment has beneficial cardiovascular effects in populations within prehypertensive levels, especially in subpopulations with SBP 130-139 mmHg or prior CVDs.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2017
Loading references information
Background: Pharmacological prophylaxis has been proven to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in individuals with atherosclerotic occlusive arterial disease. However, the role of prophylaxis in individuals with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains unclear. Several studies have shown that despite successful repair, those people with AAA have a poorer rate of survival than healthy controls. People with AAA have an increased prevalence of coronary heart disease and risk of cardiovascular events. Despite this association, little is known about the effectiveness of pharmacological prophylaxis in reducing cardiovascular risk in people with AAA. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014. Objectives: To determine the long-term effectiveness of antiplatelet, antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medication in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in people with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Search methods: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (14 April 2016). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 3) and trials registries (14 April 2016) and We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials in which people with AAA were randomly allocated to one prophylactic treatment versus another, a different regimen of the same treatment, a placebo, or no treatment were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, and completed quality assessment and data extraction. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. Only one study met the inclusion criteria of the review, therefore we were unable to perform meta-analysis. Main results: No new studies met the inclusion criteria for this update. We included one randomised controlled trial in the review. A subgroup of 227 participants with AAA received either metoprolol (N = 111) or placebo (N = 116). There was no clear evidence that metoprolol reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.41), cardiovascular death (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.76), AAA-related death (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.92) or increased nonfatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.57) 30 days postoperatively. Furthermore, at six months postoperatively, estimated effects were compatible with benefit and harm for all-cause mortality (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.95), cardiovascular death (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.39) and nonfatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.35). Adverse drug effects were reported for the whole study population and were not available for the subgroup of participants with AAA. We considered the study to be at a generally low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for all outcomes to low. We downgraded the quality of evidence for imprecision as only one study with a small number of participants was available, the number of events was small and the result was consistent with benefit and harm. Authors' conclusions: Due to the limited number of included trials, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of cardiovascular prophylaxis in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in people with AAA. Further good-quality randomised controlled trials that examine many types of prophylaxis with long-term follow-up are required before firm conclusions can be made. © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2015
Loading references information
Background: People undergoing major vascular surgery have an increased risk of postoperative cardiac complications. Beta-adrenergic blockers represent an important and established pharmacological intervention in the prevention of cardiac complications in people with coronary artery disease. It has been proposed that this class of drugs may reduce the risk of perioperative cardiac complications in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery. Objectives: To review the efficacy and safety of perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade in reducing cardiac or all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and other cardiovascular safety outcomes in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery. Search methods: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (January 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2013, Issue 12). We searched trials databases and checked reference lists of relevant articles. Selection criteria: We included prospective, randomised controlled trials of perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade of people over 18 years of age undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently performed study selection and data extraction. We resolved disagreements through discussion. We performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Main results: We included two studies in this review, both of which were double-blind, randomised controlled trials comparing perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade (metoprolol) with placebo, on cardiovascular outcomes in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery. We included 599 participants receiving beta-adrenergic blockers (301 participants) or placebo (298 participants). The overall quality of studies was good. However, one study did not report random sequence generation or allocation concealment techniques, indicating possible selection bias, and the other study did not report outcome assessor blinding and was possibly underpowered. It should be noted that several of the outcomes were only reported in a single study and neither of the studies reported on vascular patency/graft occlusion, which reduces the quality of evidence to moderate. There was no evidence that perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.03 to 15.02), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.32), non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.49; P value = 0.53), arrhythmia (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.88), heart failure (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.40 to 7.23), stroke (OR 2.67, 95% CI 0.11 to 67.08), composite cardiovascular events (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.39; P value = 0.57) or re-hospitalisation at 30 days (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.52). However, there was strong evidence that beta-adrenergic blockers increased the odds of intra-operative bradycardia (OR 4.97, 95% CI 3.22 to 7.65; P value < 0.00001) and intra-operative hypotension (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.59; P value = 0.0005). Authors' conclusions: This meta-analysis currently offers no clear evidence that perioperative beta-adrenergic blockade reduces postoperative cardiac morbidity and mortality in people undergoing major non-cardiac vascular surgery. There is evidence that intra-operative bradycardia and hypotension are more likely in people taking perioperative beta-adrenergic blockers, which should be weighed with any benefit. © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Authors Dai N , Xu D , Zhang J , Wei Y , Li W , Fan B , Xu Y
Journal The American journal of the medical sciences
Year 2014
Loading references information
The effects of differences among β-blockers and initiation times in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery (NCS) remain unknown. On June 1, 2012, the authors searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify all trials of perioperative β-blockers in patients undergoing NCS published between January 1960 and June 2012. The authors included only randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled trials of perioperatively administered β-blockers (ie, during the pre-, intra- and/or postoperative period) in patients with at least 1 risk factor for coronary artery disease undergoing NCS. The endpoints of these trials had to include all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and/or stroke. The authors identified 8 English-language publications, involving 11,180 patients, which fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Perioperative β-blocker therapy was associated with a significant decrease in patient risk of developing MI (relative risk [RR] = 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.86) but a significant increase in risk of developing stroke (RR = 2.17; 95% CI, 1.35-3.50) versus placebo, resulting in a nonsignificant decrease in overall mortality (RR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60-1.36). Indirect comparisons demonstrated that perioperative atenolol therapy was associated with lower mortality and incidence of MI. β-blocker therapy initiated >1 week before surgery was associated with improved postoperative mortality. Perioperative β-blocker treatment of patients undergoing NCS increases the incidence of stroke but decreases the incidence of MI, leading to a nonsignificant decrease in mortality. The authors also observed that atenolol treatment or β-blocker therapy initiated >1 week before NCS was associated with improved outcomes.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Journal Heart (British Cardiac Society)
Year 2014
BACKGROUND: Current European and American guidelines recommend the perioperative initiation of a course of β-blockers in those at risk of cardiac events undergoing high- or intermediate-risk surgery or vascular surgery. The Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography (DECREASE) family of trials, the bedrock of evidence for this, are no longer secure. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of β-blockade on perioperative mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke and hypotension in non-cardiac surgery using the secure data. METHODS: The randomised controlled trials of initiation of β-blockers before non-cardiac surgery were examined. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days or at discharge. The DECREASE trials were separately analysed. RESULTS: Nine secure trials totalling 10 529 patients, 291 of whom died, met the criteria. Initiation of a course of β-blockers before surgery caused a 27% risk increase in 30-day all-cause mortality (p=0.04). The DECREASE family of studies substantially contradict the meta-analysis of the secure trials on the effect of mortality (p=0.05 for divergence). In the secure trials, β-blockade reduced non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.73, p=0.001) but increased stroke (RR 1.73, p=0.05) and hypotension (RR 1.51, p<0.00001). These results were dominated by one large trial. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline bodies should retract their recommendations based on fictitious data without further delay. This should not be blocked by dispute over allocation of blame. The well-conducted trials indicate a statistically significant 27% increase in mortality from the initiation of perioperative β-blockade that guidelines currently recommend. Any remaining enthusiasts might best channel their energy into a further randomised trial which should be designed carefully and conducted honestly.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Journal Advances in therapy
Year 2014
Loading references information
INTRODUCTION: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is one of the most common complications after cardiac surgery. Patients who develop POAF have a prolonged stay in the intensive care unit and hospital and an increased risk of postoperative stroke. Many guidelines for the management of cardiac surgery patients, therefore, recommend perioperative administration of beta-blockers to prevent and treat POAF. Landiolol is an ultra-short acting beta-blocker, and some randomized controlled trials of landiolol administration for the prevention of POAF have been conducted in Japan. This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of landiolol administration for the prevention of POAF after cardiac surgery. METHODS: The Medline/PubMed and BioMed Central databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing cardiac surgery patients who received perioperative landiolol with a control group (saline administration, no drug administration, or other treatment). Two independent reviewers selected the studies for inclusion. Data regarding POAF and safety outcomes were extracted. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model). RESULTS: Six trials with a total of 560 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Landiolol administration significantly reduced the incidence of POAF after cardiac surgery (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.40). The effectiveness of landiolol administration was similar in three groups: all patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.43), patients who underwent CABG compared with a control group who received saline or nothing (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.45), and all patients who underwent cardiac surgery compared with a control group who received saline or nothing (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.17-0.42). Only two adverse events associated with landiolol administration were observed (2/302, 0.7%): hypotension in one patient and asthma in one patient. CONCLUSION: Landiolol administration reduces the incidence of POAF after cardiac surgery and is well tolerated.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Journal Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Year 2014
Results We identified 17 studies, of which 16 were RCTs (12,043 participants) and 1 was a cohort study (348 participants). Aside from the DECREASE trials, all other RCTs initiated beta blockade within 1 day or less prior to surgery. Among RCTs, beta blockade decreased nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.82) but increased nonfatal stroke (RR: 1.76; 95% CI:1.07 to 2.91), hypotension (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.60), and bradycardia (RR: 2.61; 95% CI: 2.18 to 3.12). These findings were qualitatively unchanged after the DECREASE and POISE-1 trials were excluded. Effects on mortality rate differed significantly between the DECREASE trials and other trials. Beta blockers were associated with a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality rate in the DECREASE trials (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.22) but with increased all-cause mortality rate in other trials (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.64). Beta blockers reduced cardiovascular mortality rate in the DECREASE trials (RR:0.17; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.64) but were associated with trends toward increased cardiovascular mortality rate in other trials (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.71). These differences were qualitatively unchanged after the POISE-1 trial was excluded.; Conclusions Perioperative beta blockade started within 1 day or less before noncardiac surgery prevents nonfatal MI but increases risks of stroke, death, hypotension, and bradycardia. Without the controversial DECREASE studies, there are insufficient data on beta blockade started 2 or more days prior to surgery. Multicenter RCTs are needed to address this knowledge gap.; Objective To review the literature systematically to determine whether initiation of beta blockade within 45 days prior to noncardiac surgery reduces 30-day cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates.; Methods PubMed (up to April 2013), Embase (up to April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to March 2013), and conference abstracts (January 2011 to April 2013) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing perioperative beta blockade with inactive control during noncardiac surgery. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated under the random-effects model. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess how the DECREASE-I (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography), DECREASE-IV, and POISE-1 (Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation) trials influenced our conclusions. © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Authors Guay J , Andrew Ochroch E
Journal Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia
Year 2013
Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To re-evaluate the effects of perioperative beta-blockade on mortality and major outcomes after surgery. DESIGN: A meta-analysis of parallel randomized, controlled trials published in English. SETTING: A university-based electronic search. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Two interventions were evaluated: (1) Stopping or continuing a β-blocker in patients on long-term β-blocker therapy; and (2) Adding a β-blocker for the perioperative period. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Stopping a β-blocker before the surgery did not change the risk of myocardial infarction (3 studies including 97 patients): risk ratio (RR), 1.08 (95% confidence interval 0.30, 3.95); I(2), 0%. Adding a β-blocker reduced the risk of death at 1 year: RR, 0.56 (0.31, 0.99); I(2), 0%; p = 0.046; number needed to treat 28 (19, 369) (4 studies with 781 patients). Adding a β-blocker reduced the 0-to-30 day risk of myocardial infarction: RR, 0.65 (0.47, 0.88); I(2), 12.9%; p = 0.006 (15 studies with 12,224 patients), but increased the risk of a stroke: RR, 2.18 (1.40, 3.38); I(2), 0%; p = 0.001 (8 studies with 11,737 patients); number needed to harm 177 (512, 88). CONCLUSIONS: β-blockers reduced the 1-year risk of death, and this effect seemed greater than the risk of inducing a stroke.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Authors Wu X , Wang C , Zhu J , Zhang C , Zhang Y , Gao Y
Journal BMC cardiovascular disorders
Year 2013
Loading references information
Background: Atrial arrhythmia (AA) is the most common complication after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Only beta-blockers and amiodarone have been convincingly shown to decrease its incidence. The effectiveness of magnesium on this complication is still controversial. This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of magnesium as a sole or adjuvant agent in addition to beta-blocker on suppressing postoperative AA after CABG.Methods: We searched the PubMed, Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cochrane library databases and online clinical trial database up to May 2012. We used random effects model when there was significant heterogeneity between trials and fixed effects model when heterogeneity was negligible.Results: Five randomized controlled trials were identified, enrolling a total of 1251 patients. The combination of magnesium and beta-blocker did not significantly decrease the incidence of postoperative AA after CABG versus beta-blocker alone (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-1.47, P = 0.40). Magnesium in addition to beta-blocker did not significantly affect LOS (weighted mean difference -0.14 days of stay, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.29, P = 0.24) or the overall mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.08-4.56, P = 0.62). However the risk of postoperative adverse events was higher in the combination of magnesium and beta-blocker group than beta-blocker alone (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.66-4.71, P = 0.0001).Conclusions: This meta-analysis offers the more definitive evidence against the prophylactic administration of intravenous magnesium for prevention of AA after CABG when beta-blockers are routinely administered, and shows an association with more adverse events in those people who received magnesium. © 2013 Wu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.