Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15516861›Full record

ReviewHeart failure reviews2004

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of beta blockers in heart failure.

Robert L Talbert

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Heart failure reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Revisiting perioperative beta blockade: for what it's worth.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Robert L TalbertDivision of Pharmacotherapy, College of Pharmacy, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, TX 78229-3900, USA. talbert@uthscsa.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although beta-blockers have been used for nearly three decades in the management of heart failure, only recent randomized clinical trials have demonstrated substantial benefit in reducing morbidity and mortality. Carvedilol, metoprolol succinate and bisprolol have evidence supporting their use in heart failure while other beta blockers either lack evidence supporting their use or have not been shown to be useful in heart failure. The only currently approved beta-blockers in the U.S. for heart failure are metoprolol succinate and carvedilol.Beta-blockers differ in their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. It should not be assumed that potential benefit in heart failure is a class effect since differences in the half-life, volume of distribution, protein binding, and route of elimination may give rise to differences in duration of beta blockade and potential drug interactions. Furthermore, pharmacodynamic differences exist because of selectivity for beta(1), beta(2) or alpha(1) adrenoreceptor blockade among the beta-blockers. Receptor kinetics also differ among the beta-blockers and this may influence the extent and duration of beta and alpha blockade across the category. Carvedilol is an inherently long-acting beta-blocker while the duration of beta blockade for metoprolol is dependent on the salt and formulation, which is used. Metoprolol tartrate is a short-acting form of metoprolol while metoprolol succinate is a longer acting salt and the commercially available product is designed as a once daily formulation. A recently published trial, the Carvedilol or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET) tested carvedilol given twice daily versus metoprolol tartrate given twice daily in patients with chronic heart failure. Although carvedilol reduced all cause mortality when compared with metoprolol tartrate, extrapolation to similar findings with metoprolol succinate are not possible since the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of these two formulations are different. Furthermore, the dosing of metoprolol tartrate in COMET may have been inadequate based on prior studies. Additional studies are needed to compare carvedilol directly to metoprolol succinate before concluding inequivalency exists for these two beta-blockers in heart failure.

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-AntagonistsCarbazolesCarvedilolDose-Response Relationship, DrugHeart FailureHumansMetoprololPropanolaminesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicVentricular Dysfunction, LeftAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsCarbazolesCarvedilolMetoprololPropanolamines

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.