Why the study?
Does metoprolol improve left ventricular long axis function in patients with heart failure?
Does metoprolol improve left ventricular long axis function in patients with heart failure?
Metoprolol significantly improves left ventricular long axis function in heart failure patients, with relative improvements exceeding those seen in left ventricular ejection fraction.
Metoprolol improves LV long-axis function in HF; extends beta-blocker benefits beyond LVEF to myocardial mechanics.
BACKGROUND: Although it is well known that left ventricular (LV) function improves after treatment with beta-blockers in heart failure, little attention has been paid to the effects on LV long axis (LAX) function. AIMS: To evaluate LV LAX function after treatment with metoprolol, and to assess whether LV LAX contractile reserve could predict future long-term improvement. METHODS: Twenty-four heart failure patients were randomised to metoprolol or placebo for 6 months, followed by 6 months of open treatment with metoprolol. Rest and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) was performed before and after each treatment period. RESULTS: After treatment with metoprolol, LV LAX function improved significantly, systolic velocity from 29+/-8 to 32+/-15 mm/s, p<0.01 (metoprolol) vs. 28+/-7 to 28+/-11 mm/s, ns (placebo); atrioventricular plane fractional shortening (AVP-FS) from 5.4+/-2.1 to 7.4+/-2.7%, p<0.001 (metoprolol) vs. 5.9+/-2.1 to 5.8+/-2.9%, ns (placebo). The improvement in function was maintained during DSE. LV LAX contractile reserve could not predict treatment response; the treatment effect on LV LAX function was significantly greater than the contractile reserve at baseline. The relative improvement in LV LAX function after metoprolol was 38%, compared with a 20% improvement in LV ejection fraction (EF). CONCLUSION: A significant improvement in LV LAX function was observed after treatment with metoprolol. AVP-FS and systolic velocities increased significantly, and to a greater extent than LVEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sveälv et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: