Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
In the Literature

Does the choice of β-blocker affect outcome in chronic heart failure?

Sharon K. Bal
CMAJ November 25, 2003 169 (11) 1188;
Sharon K. Bal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

COMET Investigators. Comparison of carvedilol and metoprolol on clinical outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure in the Carvedilol Or Metoprolol European Trial (COMET): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:7-13.

Background: Along with diuretics and angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, β-blockers reduce mortality among patients with chronic heart failure. A previous meta-analysis has shown carvedilol to be superior to metoprolol in increasing left ventricular ejection fraction,1 but the effects on clinical outcomes have been unclear.

Question: Among patients with chronic heart failure who are taking diuretics and ACE inhibitors, is there a difference in clinical outcome between treatment with carvedilol and metoprolol?

Design: This multi-centre double-blind randomized parallel group trial compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on mortality and morbidity among patients with chronic heart failure. Doses were titrated to a target of 25 mg twice daily (carvedilol) and 50 mg twice daily (metoprolol). Enrolled subjects were required to have symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association class II–IV), previous hospital admission because of cardiovascular disease and a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 35%, and to be taking diuretics and ACE inhibitors if tolerated. Exclusion criteria included any recent changes in treatment or clinical status. Primary end points were all-cause mortality and a composite end point of all-cause mortality and all-cause admission.

Results: Of the 3029 enrolled subjects, 1511 were assigned to receive carvedilol and 1518 metoprolol. The mean study duration was 58 months. The baseline characteristics of the 2 study groups were similar. The all-cause mortality was 34% in the carvedilol group and 40% in the metoprolol group (Table 1). The difference persisted after adjustment for known prognostic factors, and the distribution according to cause of death was similar between the 2 groups. Total admissions did not differ between the 2 groups (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 1.05, p = 0.45); thus, the difference in composite end point was mainly a result of mortality reduction in the carvedilol group. The incidence of side effects and discontinuation of treatment were similar between the 2 groups.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint

Table 1.

Commentary: This is the first large randomized controlled trial to compare carvedilol and metoprolol directly with respect to clinically important outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure. The absolute risk reduction in mortality over 5 years was 5.7% in the carvedilol group. Interestingly, hospital admission rates did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

The degree of β-blockade achieved with either drug may have played a role in the study's results. At 4 months, the mean reduction in heart rate was 13.3 beats/min in the carvedilol group and 11.7 beats/min in the metoprolol group (difference –1.6 beats/min, 95% CI –2.7 to –0.6); however, the difference did not exist after 16 months. Although the difference in heart rate may have been statistically significant before 16 months, it is difficult to ascribe the large treatment effect to this modest difference. Indeed, in addition to β1-adrenergic blockade, carvedilol differs from metoprolol in that it also blocks the β2- and α1-adrenergic receptors. The additional sites and modes of action of carvedilol are probably responsible for the differences in outcome.

Practice implications: Previous studies have shown carvedilol to be beneficial in the treatment of chronic heart failure, and trials comparing the effect of carvedilol and metoprolol on cardiac performance1,2 have shown carvedilol to be superior. Although β-blockers are known to improve mortality among patients with heart failure, the COMET findings help to refine the choice of drug in this class. Improving global cardiac function for long-term survival requires the optimization of various cardiovascular parameters (cardiac preload, cardiac afterload and myocardial oxygen requirements). When combined with a diuretic and an ACE inhibitor, carvedilol seems to help achieve this end.

Sharon K. Bal Medical Resident Department of Family Medicine University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Packer M, Antonopoulos GV, Berlin JA, Chittams J, Konstam MA, Udelson JE. Comparative effects of carvedilol and metoprolol on left ventricular ejection fraction in heart failure: results of a meta-analysis. Am Heart J 2001;141(6):899-907.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    Metra M, Giubbini R, Nodari S, Boldi E, Modena MG, Dei Cas L. Differential effects of β-blockers in patients with heart failure. Circulation 2000;102:546-51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (11)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 11
25 Nov 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Does the choice of β-blocker affect outcome in chronic heart failure?
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Does the choice of β-blocker affect outcome in chronic heart failure?
Sharon K. Bal
CMAJ Nov 2003, 169 (11) 1188;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Does the choice of β-blocker affect outcome in chronic heart failure?
Sharon K. Bal
CMAJ Nov 2003, 169 (11) 1188;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Bisphosphonates and skeletal morbidity in patients with metastatic cancer
  • ACE inhibition in stable coronary artery disease
Show more In the Literature

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drugs: cardiovascular system
    • Cardiology: heart failure

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire