Statistics from Altmetric.com
For more than two decades, the role of β-blockers in preventing cardiac complications after surgery has been among the most hotly contested and controversial topics in medical practice. Based on two small randomised trials published in the late 1990s,1 ,2 leading physicians and experts in patient safety embraced preoperative β-blocker initiation as a therapeutic victory for high-risk surgical patients: an apparently simple and effective treatment that promised, for the first time, to prevent life-threatening postoperative cardiac events.
Yet nearly as soon as preoperative β-blocker initiation had come to be seen as a ‘best practice’, its status was cast into doubt. New randomised trials published between 2005 and 2008 failed to confirm promising early findings and highlighted the potential for harm with β-blocker overuse.3–6 Recommendations that had previously urged widespread preoperative β-blocker initiation among high-risk patients7 ,8 were softened or reversed.9 ,10 Debates over whether or not β-blockers were safe for surgical patients displaced discussions on how to promote their use on a large scale.
On one level, what may be most remarkable about the rise and fall of preoperative β-blocker guidelines is how unremarkable it seems. Preoperative β-blockade is only one of several recent examples in which expert endorsements of promising therapies changed markedly when new evidence highlighted potential harms that had been overlooked by these endorsements. Yet the β-blocker story differs in important ways from canonical examples of reversals in recommendations for medical practice. Prominent retellings of how expert recommendations changed regarding hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for women after menopause, for example, have emphasised the pitfalls of relying on non-randomised studies rather than randomised controlled trials in defining benefits and harms of therapies.11 ,12 In contrast, preoperative β-blocker initiation was elevated rapidly to the status of a best practice specifically …
Contributors All authors contributed to the planning, conduct and reporting of the work described in the article. MDN, CLB and LAF jointly developed the idea for the article. MDN performed literature searches and obtained feedback from key informants. MDN, CLB and LAF analysed and interpreted the data. MDN wrote the first draft of the article; CLB and LAF provided extensive critical revisions on article drafts. MDN is the guarantor and accepts full responsibility for the article. MDN had access to all study data and controlled the decision to publish. Additional contributions: Michael Cirullo provided research assistance. We received valuable feedback on a previous version of this manuscript from Mary Dixon-Woods, Renee Fox, Sandy Schwartz, Robert Aronowitz, Kim Eagle, Allan Detsky and Amir Qaseem.
Funding This study was supported by a grant to MDN from the National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD (grant 1K08AG043548).
Competing interests LAF has been a volunteer member and chair of ACC/AHA guideline committees from 1996 to the present; no compensation was provided for his work on these guidelines.
Ethics approval University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine IRB.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.