Beta-adrenoblockers in clinical practice: is there any difference?
Abstract
Modern views on various β-adrenoblockers (BB) place in clinical practice are presented. BB class is a clinically heterogeneous group. Recent criticism of BB should not disorient practitioners, who must understand which BB are mentioned. Some BB, mostly non-selective, demonstrate adverse effects and cannot be used in certain clinical situations: metabolic disturbances, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), peripheral artery atherosclerosis. At the same time, modern super-selective BB are safe and can be administered even in individuals with metabolic syndrome, diabetes mellitus, COPD, or peripheral artery atherosclerosis.
About the Authors
D. V. Nebieridze
State Research Center for Preventive Medicine, State Federal Agency for Health and Social Development, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. Meliya
Cardiology Clinic «Guly», Tbilisi
Georgia
Georgia
G. R. Kulieva
State Research Center for Preventive Medicine, State Federal Agency for Health and Social Development, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Второй пересмотр рекомендаций ВНОК по профилактике, диагностике и лечению артериальной гипертензии. Кардиоваск тер профил 2004; 3(3) часть 1: 105-20.
2. Российские рекомендации по диагностике и лечению стабильной стенокардии. Приложение ж Кардиоваск тер профил 2004.
3. Национальные рекомендации ВНОК и ОССН по диагностике и лечению ХСН (второй пересмотр). Серд недостат 2006; 8(2): 1-35.
4. Collins R, Peto R, MacMahon S, et al. Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease. Part II: Effects of short term-reductions of blood pressure – an overview of the unconfined randomized drug trials in an epidemiological context. Lancet 1990, 335; 827-8.
5. Wikstrand J, Warnold I, Tuomilehto J, et al. Metoprolol versus thiazide diuretics in hypertension. Morbidity results from MAPHY study. Hypertension 1991; 17: 570-88.
6. Viskin S, Kitzis I, Lev E, et al. Treatment with beta-adrenergic blocking agents after myocardial infarction: from randomized trials to clinical practice. JACC 1995; 25: 1327-32.
7. Berne C, Pollare T, Lithell H: Effects of antihypertensive treatment on insulin sensitivity with special reference to ACE inhibitors. Diabetes Care 1991; 14 (Suppl 4): 39-47.
8. Lithell H. Effect of antihypertensive drugs on insulin, glucose, and lipid metabolism. Diabetes Care 1991; 14: 203-9.
9. Reneland R, Alvares E, Andersson PL, et al. Induction of insulin resistance by beta-blockade but not by ACE-inhibition: long-term treatment with atenolol or trandolapril. J Hum Hypertens 2000; 14: 175-80.
10. Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents: Propranolol or HCTZ alone for the initial treatment of hypertension. IV. Effect on plasma glucose and glucose tolerance. Hypertension 1985; 7: 1008-16.
11. The Working Group on Hypertension in diabetes: Statement on hypertension in diabetes mellitus. Final report. Arch Int Med 1987; 147: 830-42.
12. Pool PE, Seagren SC, Salel AF. Metabolic consequences of treating hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1991; 4: 494-502.
13. Weidmann P, Feffier C, Saxenhofer H, et al. Serum lipoproteins during treatment with antihypertensive drugs. Drugs 1988; 35 (Suppl 6): 118-34.
14. Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, at al. A Calcium Antagonist vs a Non-Calcium Antagonist Hypertension Tretment Strategy for Patients With Coronary Artery Disease The International Verapamil SR/Trandolapril Study (INVEST): A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2003; 290 (21): 2805-61.
15. The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic. JAMA 2002; 288: 2981-97.
16. Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomized trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002; 359: 995-1003.
17. UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Efficacy of atenolol and captopril in reducing risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 39. BMJ 1998; 317: 713-20.
18. Beevers DG. The end of beta-bockers for uncomplicated hypertension? Lancet 2005; 366: 1510-2.
19. Wang B, Song WH, Liu GZ. Multi-center Cooperation Group of Bisoprolol. The effect long-term administration of a selective beta1 blocker bisoprolol on glucose metabolism in patients with essential hypertensive and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi 2005; 44(7): 503-5.
20. von Arnim T, TIBBS Investigators. Medical treatment to reduce total ischemic burden: Total Ischemic Burden Bisoprolol Study (TIBBS), a mutticenter trial comparing bisoprolol and nifedipine. JACC 1995; 25: 231-8.
21. CIBIS-II Investigators and Committees. The Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II (CIBIS-II): a randomized trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 9-13.
22. Buhler FR, Berglund G, Anderson OK, et al. Double-blind comparison of the cardioselective beta-blockers bisoprolol and atenolol in hypertension: the Bisoprolol International Multicenter Study (BIMS). J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1986; 8(Suppl. 11): S122-7.
23. Heyden S, Schneider KA, Fodor JG. Smoking habits and antihypertensive treatment. Nephron 1987; 47(Suppl. 1): 99-103.
24. Bang LE, Buttenschon L, Kristensen KS, et al. Do we undertreat hypertensive smokers? A comparison between smoking and non-smoking hypertensives. Circulation 1994; 90(1): 248-53.
25. Journath G, Nilsson PM, Petersson U, et al. Hypertensive smokers have a worse cardiovascular risk profile than non-smokers in spite of treatment-a national study in Sweden. Blood Press 2005; 14(3): 144-50.
26. Марцевич С.Ю., Шальнова С.А., Деев А.Д. и др. Исследование ПРОЛОГ: основные итоги и руководство к действию. Кардиоваск тер профил 2006; 6: 23-6.
27. Лазерная допплеровская флоуметрия микроциркуляции крови. Под редакцией А.И. Крупаткина, В.В. Сидорова. Руководство для врачей. Медицина 2005.
Review
For citations:
Nebieridze D.V., Meliya A., Kulieva G.R. Beta-adrenoblockers in clinical practice: is there any difference? Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention. 2007;6(3):90-93. (In Russ.)
Views:
464
Email this article 
