Effect of Carvedilol vs Metoprolol on Atrial and Ventricular Arrhythmias Among Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Recipients

Both selective and nonselective beta-blockers are used to treat patients with heart failure (HF). However, the data on the association of beta-blocker type with risk of atrial arrhythmia and ventricular arrhythmia (VA) in HF patients with a primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) are limited.This study sought to evaluate the effect of metoprolol vs carvedilol on the risk of atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) and VA in HF patients with an ICD.This study pooled primary prevention ICD recipients from 5 landmark ICD trials (MADIT-II, MADIT-CRT, MADIT-RIT, MADIT-RISK, and RAID). Fine and Gray multivariate regression models, stratified by study, were used to evaluate the risk of ATA, inappropriate ICD shocks, and fast VA (defined as ventricular tachycardia ≥200 beats/min or ventricular fibrillation) by beta-blocker type.Among 4,194 patients, 2,920 (70%) were prescribed carvedilol and 1,274 (30%) metoprolol. The cumulative incidence of ATA at 3.5 years was 11% in patients treated with carvedilol vs 15% in patients taking metoprolol (P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis showed that carvedilol treatment was associated with a 35% reduction in the risk of ATA (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.53-0.81; P < 0.001) when compared to metoprolol, and with a corresponding 35% reduction in the risk of inappropriate ICD shocks (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47-0.89; P = 0.008). Carvedilol vs metoprolol was also associated with a 16% reduction in the risk of fast VA. However, these findings did not reach statistical significance (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.70-1.02; P = 0.085).These findings suggests that HF patients with ICDs on carvedilol treatment experience a significantly lower risk of ATA and inappropriate ICD shocks when compared to treatment with metoprolol.