Systematic review evaluates mortality and safety of β-blockers in sepsis, highlighting conflicting evidence.
Background The role of ultra-rapid β-blockers in sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction remains controversial, with conflicting evidence regarding mortality benefits and safety concerns in hemodynamically unstable patients. Methods This study retrieved relevant reports on randomized controlled trials of ultra-rapid β-blockers conducted for adult patients with sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction, up to and including the date of May 30, 2025, from the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase. Primary outcomes were 28-day mortality and adverse events; secondary outcomes included heart rate control and mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 48 h. Random-effects models calculated risk ratios (RR) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. Results Eight studies reported 28-day mortality, showing no significant reduction with ultra-rapid β-blockers (RR, 0.84, 95% CI: 0.67–1.06; P = 0.15; I² = 54%). Safety data from four studies indicated no increased adverse events (RR, 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82–1.33; P = 0.72; I² = 0%). Paradoxically, ultra-rapid β-blockers were associated with worse heart rate control (RR, 1.51, 95% CI: 1.00–2.29; P = 0.05). MAP at 48 h showed no intergroup difference (SMD, −0.85, 95% CI: −2.24–0.54). Conclusion ultra-rapid β-blockers demonstrate an acceptable safety profile without compromising hemodynamic stability but fail to reduce 28-day mortality in sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction patients. The inferior heart rate control suggests potential physiological incompatibility in this population. Precision targeting based on adrenergic activity and cardiac phenotyping warrants investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: