BACKGROUND: Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.
OBJECTIVES: This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.
Long-term treatment with appropriate doses of carvedilol or metoprolol is currently recommended for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to decrease the risk of death, hospitalizations, and patients' symptoms. It remains unclear if the β blockers used in patients with HFrEF are equal or carvedilol is superior to metoprolol types. We performed a meta-analysis of the comparative effects of carvedilol versus metoprolol tartrate and succinate on all-cause mortality and/or hospitalization. We conducted an Embase and MEDLINE search for prospective controlled trials and cohort studies of patients with HFrEF who were received to treatment with carvedilol versus metoprolol. We identified 4 prospective controlled and 6 cohort studies with 30,943 patients who received carvedilol and 69,925 patients on metoprolol types (tartrate and succinate) with an average follow-up duration of 36.4 months. All-cause mortality was reduced in prospective studies with carvedilol versus metoprolol tartrate. Neither all-cause mortality nor hospitalizations were significantly different between carvedilol and metoprolol succinate in the cohort studies. In conclusion, in patients with HFrEF, carvedilol and metoprolol succinate have similar effects in reducing all-cause mortality.
BACKGROUND: To assess the influence of beta2-receptor suppression on top of selective beta1-receptor blockade on the occurrence of vascular events and on all-cause mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or heart failure (HF ).
METHODS: Systematic review of studies published since 1980. Randomised controlled trials directly comparing beta1 blockers with beta1+2 blockers, or comparing the two beta blockers with placebo, were included. Studies had a minimum treatment period of three months and total mortality or vascular events as their primary or secondary outcome.
RESULTS: Of the included studies, five directly compared beta blockers (3733 patients) and 28 compared beta blockers with placebo (30,889 patients). These latter studies were heterogeneous in study population, dose and type of beta blockers. In ACS, the only study directly comparing different beta blockers was underpowered to detect a difference on mortality, while in HF beta1+2 blockers significantly decreased mortality compared with b1 blockers (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.94). In ACS, beta1 blockers in placebo-controlled trials non-significantly reduced total mortality (RR 0.82, 0.67 to 1.01) or vascular events (RR 0.68, 0.42 to 1.11), while beta1+2 blockers were associated with a significant decrease in total mortality (RR 0.73, 0.64 to 0.82), and vascular events (RR 0.71, 0.59 to 0.84). In HF, beta1 and beta1+2 blockers reduced total mortality, while only beta1+2 blockers decreased vascular events (RR 0.80, 0.64 to 1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: Additional beta2-receptor blockade may be more effective than beta1-receptor blockade alone in preventing total mortality and vascular events in patients with ACS or, to a lesser extent, HF . However, only a few studies directly compared beta blockers, and indirect comparisons were subject to heterogeneity, which weakens firm conclusions.
BACKGROUND: Both metoprolol and carvedilol improve cardiac function and prolong survival in patients with heart failure. Carvedilol has broader antiadrenergic effects than metoprolol, but it is not clear whether this characteristic is associated with greater benefits on cardiac function during long-term treatment.
STUDY DESIGN: We performed a meta-analysis of all 19 randomized controlled trials of carvedilol or metoprolol that measured left ventricular ejection fraction before and after an average of 8.3 +/- 0.1 months of treatment in 2184 patients with chronic heart failure. The mean daily doses were 58 +/- 1 mg of carvedilol and the equivalent of 162 +/- 1 mg of extended-release metoprolol. In the 15 placebo-controlled trials, the mean ejection fraction increased more in the trials of carvedilol than in the trials of metoprolol (placebo-corrected increases of +0.065 and +0.038, respectively), P = .0002. In the 4 active-controlled trials that compared metoprolol directly with carvedilol, the mean ejection fraction also increased more in the carvedilol groups than in the metoprolol groups (+0.084 on carvedilol and +0.057 on metoprolol, respectively), P = .009. The difference in favor of carvedilol in the active-controlled trials was nearly identical to the difference observed in the placebo-controlled trials and was apparent in patients with and without coronary artery disease.
CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment with carvedilol produces greater effects on left ventricular ejection fraction than metoprolol when both drugs are prescribed in doses similar to those that have been shown to prolong life.
Approximately half of people with heart failure have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD have the potential to reduce death (any cause) or hospitalisations for decompensated heart failure. However, these interventions are of uncertain benefit and may increase the risk of harm, such as hypotension and electrolyte abnormalities, in those with CKD.
OBJECTIVES:
This review aims to look at the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for HF (i.e., antihypertensive agents, inotropes, and agents that may improve the heart performance indirectly) in people with HF and CKD.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies through 12 September 2019 in consultation with an Information Specialist and using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological intervention for acute or chronic heart failure, among people of any age with chronic kidney disease of at least three months duration.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two authors independently screened the records to identify eligible studies and extracted data on the following dichotomous outcomes: death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure, worsening kidney function, hyperkalaemia, and hypotension. We used random effects meta-analysis to estimate treatment effects, which we expressed as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. We applied the GRADE methodology to rate the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS:
One hundred and twelve studies met our selection criteria: 15 were studies of adults with CKD; 16 studies were conducted in the general population but provided subgroup data for people with CKD; and 81 studies included individuals with CKD, however, data for this subgroup were not provided. The risk of bias in all 112 studies was frequently high or unclear. Of the 31 studies (23,762 participants) with data on CKD patients, follow-up ranged from three months to five years, and study size ranged from 16 to 2916 participants. In total, 26 studies (19,612 participants) reported disaggregated and extractable data on at least one outcome of interest for our review and were included in our meta-analyses. In acute heart failure, the effects of adenosine A1-receptor antagonists, dopamine, nesiritide, or serelaxin on death, hospitalisations, worsening heart failure or kidney function, hyperkalaemia, hypotension or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. In chronic heart failure, the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (4 studies, 5003 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; I2 = 78%; low certainty evidence), aldosterone antagonists (2 studies, 34 participants: RR 0.61 95% CI 0.06 to 6.59; very low certainty evidence), and vasopressin receptor antagonists (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.89; 2 studies, 1840 participants; low certainty evidence) on death (any cause) were uncertain. Treatment with beta-blockers may reduce the risk of death (any cause) (4 studies, 3136 participants: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Treatment with ACEi or ARB (2 studies, 1368 participants: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.90; I2 = 97%; very low certainty evidence) had uncertain effects on hospitalisation for heart failure, as treatment estimates were consistent with either benefit or harm. Treatment with beta-blockers may decrease hospitalisation for heart failure (3 studies, 2287 participants: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.05; I2 = 87%; low certainty evidence). Aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia compared to placebo or no treatment (3 studies, 826 participants: RR 2.91, 95% CI 2.03 to 4.17; I2 = 0%; low certainty evidence). Renin inhibitors had uncertain risks of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 142 participants: RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.49; I2 = 0%; very low certainty). We were unable to estimate whether treatment with sinus node inhibitors affects the risk of hyperkalaemia, as there were few studies and meta-analysis was not possible. Hyperkalaemia was not reported for the CKD subgroup in studies investigating other therapies. The effects of ACEi or ARB, or aldosterone antagonists on worsening heart failure or kidney function, hypotension, or quality of life were uncertain due to sparse data or were not reported. Effects of anti-arrhythmic agents, digoxin, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, renin inhibitors, sinus node inhibitors, vasodilators, and vasopressin receptor antagonists were very uncertain due to the paucity of studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
The effects of pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with CKD are uncertain and there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice. Study data for treatment outcomes in patients with heart failure and CKD are sparse despite the potential impact of kidney impairment on the benefits and harms of treatment. Future research aimed at analysing existing data in general population HF studies to explore the effect in subgroups of patients with CKD, considering stage of disease, may yield valuable insights for the management of people with HF and CKD.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
