Clinical Outcomes of Calcium-Channel Blocker vs Beta-Blocker

Although current guidelines recommend beta-blockers (BBs) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the role of calcium-channel blockers (CCBs) has not been well investigated, especially nondihydropyridine.This study aimed to compare the effects of CCBs on cardiovascular outcomes compared with BBs in AMI because patients from East Asia have a higher incidence of a vasospastic angina component compared with Western countries.Among 15,628 patients enrolled in the KAMIR-V (Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry-V), we evaluated 10,650 in-hospital survivors who were treated with either CCBs or BBs. We applied a propensity score for 1:4 pair matching of baseline covariates and Cox regression to compare CCBs and BBs. The primary endpoint was all-cause death at 1 year. The secondary endpoints were 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, which was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and readmission due to heart failure and stroke.There was a significant interaction with the treatment arm with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (P for interaction = 0.011). CCB groups at discharge had higher 1-year cardiac death and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events for patients with LVEF <50% (HR: 4.950; 95% CI: 1.329-18.435; P = 0.017; and HR: 1.810; 95% CI: 1.038-3.158; P = 0.037, respectively) but not for patients with LVEF ≥50% (HR: 0.699; 95% CI: 0.435-1.124; P = 0.140).CCB therapy did not increase adverse cardiovascular events for patients after AMI with preserved LVEF. CCBs can be considered as an alternative for BBs in East Asian patients after AMI with preserved LVEF.