2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.xjon.2020.07.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Meta-analysis of the benefit of beta-blockers for the reduction of isolated atrial fibrillation incidence after cardiac surgery

Abstract: Objectives: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is a common problem of cardiac surgery. Beta-blockers are recognized as effective prophylactic agents available for POAF management. To better understand its effect on isolated atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery, a meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched and filtered by comparing the efficacy of beta-blockers and control users in isolated POAF for cardiac surgery. Seventeen RCTs were identified and analy… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The results from the meta-analysis presented by Masuda and colleagues 6 are in overall agreement with the conclusions of the Cochrane systematic review that included many more studies on arrhythmias after cardiac surgery. 1 While the meta-analyses by Masuda and colleagues do state that the use of β-blockers approximately halved the risk of developing PoAF after cardiac surgery, and the 95% confidence interval for the reduced risk of PoAF with β-blockers is reported to range between 0.41 and 0.66 (does not include 1), the authors report that the P value for the predication interval was statistically not significant ( P = .31).…”
supporting
confidence: 83%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The results from the meta-analysis presented by Masuda and colleagues 6 are in overall agreement with the conclusions of the Cochrane systematic review that included many more studies on arrhythmias after cardiac surgery. 1 While the meta-analyses by Masuda and colleagues do state that the use of β-blockers approximately halved the risk of developing PoAF after cardiac surgery, and the 95% confidence interval for the reduced risk of PoAF with β-blockers is reported to range between 0.41 and 0.66 (does not include 1), the authors report that the P value for the predication interval was statistically not significant ( P = .31).…”
supporting
confidence: 83%
“…Finally, isolated cell systems do not currently provide an adequate substrate to investigate mechanisms of triggered electrical activation in a setting that mimics the postoperative milieu. Taken together, the best means to study effective treatment(s) to reduce and/or eliminate the development of PoAF following cardiac surgery remains randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, such as the one presented here by Masuda and colleagues, 6 allows the formulation and refinement of clinical guidelines for this insidious arrhythmia. 1.…”
Section: Central Messagementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Since 2007, the STS ACSD has incorporated a National Quality Forum endorsed quality measure for isolated CABG related to preoperative beta-blocker administration: "Indicate whether or not the patient received beta-blockers within 24 h preceding incision time, or if beta-blocker was contraindicated" [7] . Although the dose details (e.g., 12.5 mg of metoprolol within 24 h) were not required to be documented, this quality metric was added due to evidence that beta-blockers may reduce the incidence of POAF [18][19][20] . Despite the very high (90.3%) level of preoperative beta-blocker administration compliance across STS participating centers, the incidence of STS-defined POAF remains at 26.3% [12] .…”
Section: Pharmacologic Prophylaxismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the current issue of the Journal , Masuda and colleagues 9 report a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect of perioperative β-blocker administration on isolated POAF following cardiac surgery. Their study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%