Aims: To compare the hazard of all-cause, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in carvedilol vs. metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol users with COPD and concurrent HF from 2009 to 2012, and to evaluate the use and persistence in treatment of these β-blockers, their impact on the risk of COPD-related hospitalization, and the factors important for their selection. Methods and results: Cox and logistic regression were used for both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Carvedilol users had a higher hazard of being hospitalized for HF compared with metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol users in both the unadjusted [hazard ratio (HR) 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.65-1.83] and adjusted (HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.52-1.70) analyses. No significant differences were found for all-cause and COPD hospitalization between the two groups. Carvedilol users had a significant lower restricted mean persistence time than metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol users. Patients exposed to carvedilol had an odds ratio (OR) of 1.38 (95% CI 1.23-1.56) for being hospitalized due to COPD within 60days after redeeming the first carvedilol prescription, which was similar to that observed in metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol users (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.27-1.48). Patients with concurrent chronic kidney disease had a higher probability of receiving carvedilol (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.04-1.29). Conclusion: Carvedilol prescription carried an increased hazard of HF hospitalization and lower restricted mean persistence time among patients with COPD and concurrent HF. Additionally, we found a widespread phenomenon of carvedilol prescription at variance with the European Society of Cardiology guidelines and potential for improving the proportion of patients treated with β-blockers.

Relationship between heart failure, concurrent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and beta-blocker use: A Danish nationwide cohort study

Mascolo, Annamaria;Capuano, Annalisa;Rossi, Francesco;
2018

Abstract

Aims: To compare the hazard of all-cause, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in carvedilol vs. metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol users with COPD and concurrent HF from 2009 to 2012, and to evaluate the use and persistence in treatment of these β-blockers, their impact on the risk of COPD-related hospitalization, and the factors important for their selection. Methods and results: Cox and logistic regression were used for both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Carvedilol users had a higher hazard of being hospitalized for HF compared with metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol users in both the unadjusted [hazard ratio (HR) 1.74; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.65-1.83] and adjusted (HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.52-1.70) analyses. No significant differences were found for all-cause and COPD hospitalization between the two groups. Carvedilol users had a significant lower restricted mean persistence time than metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol users. Patients exposed to carvedilol had an odds ratio (OR) of 1.38 (95% CI 1.23-1.56) for being hospitalized due to COPD within 60days after redeeming the first carvedilol prescription, which was similar to that observed in metoprolol/bisoprolol/nebivolol users (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.27-1.48). Patients with concurrent chronic kidney disease had a higher probability of receiving carvedilol (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.04-1.29). Conclusion: Carvedilol prescription carried an increased hazard of HF hospitalization and lower restricted mean persistence time among patients with COPD and concurrent HF. Additionally, we found a widespread phenomenon of carvedilol prescription at variance with the European Society of Cardiology guidelines and potential for improving the proportion of patients treated with β-blockers.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11591/386952
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 19
  • Scopus 44
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact