MétaCan
← all works

Dose-limiting, adverse event–associated bradycardia with β-blocker treatment of atrial fibrillation in the GENETIC-AF trial

2021· article· en· 4 citations· W3212329417 on OpenAlex· 10.1016/j.hroo.2021.11.005

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

The three-model screen

all 1,000 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Post hoc analysis of bradycardia during beta-blocker treatment in the GENETIC-AF trial; uses trial data to answer a clinical question.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The analysis concerns adverse events and dosing in a clinical trial.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Clinical cardiology analysis of bradycardia under beta-blockers in an AF trial.

Abstract

BackgroundHeart failure (HF) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often have conduction system disorders, which may be worsened by β-blocker therapy.ObjectiveIn a post hoc analysis we examined the prevalence of bradycardia and its association with adverse events (AEs) and failure to achieve target dose in the GENETIC-AF trial.MethodsPatients randomized to metoprolol (n = 125) or bucindolol (n = 131) entering 24-week efficacy follow-up and receiving study medication were evaluated. Bradycardia was defined as an electrocardiogram (ECG) heart rate (HR) <60 beats per minute (bpm) and severe bradycardia <50 bpm.ResultsMean HR in sinus rhythm (SR) was 62.6 ± 12.5 bpm for metoprolol and 68.3 ± 11.1 bpm for bucindolol (P < .0001), but in AF HRs were not different (87.5 bpm vs 89.7 bpm, respectively). Episodes per patient for bucindolol vs metoprolol were 0.82 vs 2.08 (P < .001) for bradycardia and 0.24 vs 0.57 for severe bradycardia (P < .001), with 98.9% of the episodes occurring in SR. Patients experiencing bradycardia had a 4.15-fold higher prevalence of study medication dose reduction (P <.0001) compared to patients without bradycardia. Fewer patients receiving metoprolol were at target dose (61.7% vs 74.9% for bucindolol, P < .0001) at ECG recordings, and bradycardia AEs were more prevalent in the metoprolol group (13 vs 1 for bucindolol, P = .001). On multivariate analysis of 21 candidate bradycardia predictors including presence of a device with pacing capability, bucindolol treatment was associated with the greatest degree of prevention (Zodds ratio -4.24, P < .0001).ConclusionIn AF-prone HF patients bradycardia may limit the effectiveness of β blockers, and this property is agent-dependent. Heart failure (HF) patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often have conduction system disorders, which may be worsened by β-blocker therapy. In a post hoc analysis we examined the prevalence of bradycardia and its association with adverse events (AEs) and failure to achieve target dose in the GENETIC-AF trial. Patients randomized to metoprolol (n = 125) or bucindolol (n = 131) entering 24-week efficacy follow-up and receiving study medication were evaluated. Bradycardia was defined as an electrocardiogram (ECG) heart rate (HR) <60 beats per minute (bpm) and severe bradycardia <50 bpm. Mean HR in sinus rhythm (SR) was 62.6 ± 12.5 bpm for metoprolol and 68.3 ± 11.1 bpm for bucindolol (P < .0001), but in AF HRs were not different (87.5 bpm vs 89.7 bpm, respectively). Episodes per patient for bucindolol vs metoprolol were 0.82 vs 2.08 (P < .001) for bradycardia and 0.24 vs 0.57 for severe bradycardia (P < .001), with 98.9% of the episodes occurring in SR. Patients experiencing bradycardia had a 4.15-fold higher prevalence of study medication dose reduction (P <.0001) compared to patients without bradycardia. Fewer patients receiving metoprolol were at target dose (61.7% vs 74.9% for bucindolol, P < .0001) at ECG recordings, and bradycardia AEs were more prevalent in the metoprolol group (13 vs 1 for bucindolol, P = .001). On multivariate analysis of 21 candidate bradycardia predictors including presence of a device with pacing capability, bucindolol treatment was associated with the greatest degree of prevention (Zodds ratio -4.24, P < .0001). In AF-prone HF patients bradycardia may limit the effectiveness of β blockers, and this property is agent-dependent.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

The record

Venue
Heart Rhythm O2
Topic
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Field
Medicine
Canadian institutions
Montreal Heart InstituteLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Funders
Keywords
BradycardiaMedicineMetoprololAtrial fibrillationCardiologyInternal medicineHeart rateSinus bradycardiaBeta blockerAnesthesiaHeart failureBlood pressure
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes