Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Beta-blocker discontinuation noninferior to continuation in stable post-MI patients without heart failureStable heart attack patients may safely stop beta-blockers after one year, study finds

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider beta-blocker discontinuation in stable post-MI patients with LVEF ≥40% and no HF after 1 year of therapy.

This was a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial conducted across 25 centers in South Korea. The study enrolled 2540 patients who had experienced a myocardial infarction (MI), had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 40%, had no heart failure, and whose condition remained stable after receiving beta-blocker therapy for at least 1 year following their MI. The median follow-up duration was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.5 to 3.5).

The intervention was the discontinuation of beta-blocker therapy. The comparator was the continuation of beta-blocker therapy. The specific dosing, titration schedules, or types of beta-blockers used were not reported in the provided data. Patients were randomized to either stop their beta-blockers or to continue taking them as prescribed.

The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure. The primary end-point event occurred in 58 patients in the discontinuation group (4-year Kaplan-Meier estimate, 7.2%) and in 74 patients in the continuation group (4-year Kaplan-Meier estimate, 9.0%). The hazard ratio was 0.80, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.57 to 1.13. The P-value for noninferiority was 0.001, meeting the prespecified noninferiority margin. This indicates that discontinuing beta-blockers was statistically noninferior to continuing them for this composite endpoint.

No specific data on key secondary outcomes were provided in the input. The study results focused on the primary composite endpoint.

Detailed safety and tolerability findings, including specific adverse event rates and discontinuation rates due to adverse events, were not reported. The input states only that the incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. Tolerability data were not provided.

These results challenge the traditional paradigm of indefinite beta-blocker therapy for all post-MI patients, which was largely established by landmark trials like the Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial (BHAT) and the Norwegian Timolol Trial conducted in the 1980s. Those trials demonstrated mortality benefits of beta-blockers initiated early after MI in broader populations, often including patients with reduced ejection fraction. The current study specifically addresses a modern, stable cohort without systolic dysfunction or heart failure who have already completed at least one year of therapy, a scenario not directly tested in the older landmark studies.

Key methodological limitations include the open-label design, which introduces potential for bias in outcome assessment, though the use of hard clinical endpoints may mitigate this. The noninferiority margin was set at a hazard ratio of 1.4, which is a clinically relevant threshold but should be considered when interpreting the results. The study population was exclusively from South Korea, which may limit generalizability to other ethnic and healthcare demographics. The specific beta-blockers used and their doses were not reported, which could affect the interpretation of the results.

The clinical implications are specific. For stable post-MI patients with preserved LVEF (≥40%) and no heart failure who have tolerated at least one year of beta-blocker therapy, these data provide evidence that discontinuing the medication may be a reasonable consideration without increasing the short-to-medium-term risk of death, recurrent MI, or heart failure hospitalization. This could simplify medication regimens and potentially reduce side effects and costs. However, this decision should be individualized, considering patient preferences, reasons for initial beta-blocker use (e.g., angina, arrhythmia), and the absence of other compelling indications.

Several important questions remain unanswered. The long-term effects (beyond 3-4 years) of beta-blocker discontinuation in this population are unknown. The study did not report outcomes for individual components of the composite endpoint (e.g., mortality alone), nor did it assess patient-reported outcomes like quality of life, symptoms, or reasons for discontinuation in the continuation group. The applicability to patients with other compelling indications for beta-blockers (like atrial fibrillation) or to those with borderline LVEF (e.g., 40-50%) is unclear. Finally, the optimal method for tapering and discontinuing beta-blockers was not described.

This research matters to the millions of people worldwide who take beta-blocker medications after having a heart attack. Beta-blockers are commonly prescribed long-term to protect the heart, but they can cause side effects like fatigue, dizziness, and low blood pressure. For patients who have recovered well and have strong heart function, this study explores whether continuing these medications indefinitely is always necessary. The question is important because it could mean some people might safely reduce their medication burden and avoid side effects, potentially improving their daily quality of life.

The researchers conducted a clinical trial at 25 centers in South Korea. They enrolled 2,540 patients who had experienced a heart attack at least one year earlier. All participants had to be in stable condition with no signs of heart failure and had to have good heart pumping function (an ejection fraction of at least 40%). Crucially, every patient had already been taking a beta-blocker for a full year after their heart attack. The researchers randomly assigned half the patients to stop taking their beta-blocker, while the other half continued taking it as usual. They then followed both groups for a median of just over three years to see what happened.

The main finding was that stopping the beta-blocker was not worse than continuing it for this specific group of patients. The researchers looked at a combination of serious events: death from any cause, another heart attack, or needing to go to the hospital for heart failure. Over about four years, an estimated 7.2% of patients who stopped their medication experienced one of these events, compared to 9.0% of patients who kept taking it. The statistical analysis showed that stopping the drug was 'noninferior,' meaning the outcomes were not meaningfully worse. In fact, the numbers slightly favored the group that stopped, though this difference was not strong enough to say stopping was better.

Regarding safety, the study reported that serious adverse events occurred at similar rates in both groups. This suggests that suddenly stopping the beta-blocker under a doctor's guidance in this stable population did not lead to a surge of immediate dangerous problems. However, the study did not provide detailed reports on common side effects like tiredness or dizziness, which often influence a patient's desire to stop medication. The main safety message is that for these carefully selected patients, guided discontinuation did not appear to cause harm over the several years they were followed.

There are several important reasons not to overreact to this single study. First, it was an 'open-label' trial, meaning both patients and doctors knew who was stopping the medication, which can sometimes influence reporting of outcomes. Second, the study defined 'not worse' using a specific statistical margin. While the results fell within that safe margin, more research is always helpful. Most importantly, these results apply only to a very specific group: people who had a heart attack, have strong heart function, have no heart failure, and remained stable while on beta-blockers for a full year. It does not apply to people with weaker hearts or those who recently had a heart attack.

For patients right now, this study realistically means that if you fit this very specific profile, it's a conversation you could have with your cardiologist. Do not stop your beta-blocker on your own. Abruptly stopping these medications can be dangerous for many people. This research provides evidence that for a stable subset of patients, a doctor-supervised process of stopping might be a reasonable option to discuss, weighing the potential for fewer medication side effects against the continued protection the drug may offer. It shifts the discussion from 'you must take this forever' to 'let's evaluate your individual situation.' Your doctor will consider your complete health picture before making any changes to your treatment plan.

What this means for you:
Stable heart attack patients with strong hearts may discuss stopping beta-blockers with their doctor, but never stop on your own.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 2,540
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up12.0 mo
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: The role of long-term beta-blocker therapy after a myocardial infarction in patients without left ventricular systolic dysfunction or heart failure is unclear in the era of contemporary coronary-artery reperfusion and secondary prevention interventions. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial at 25 centers in South Korea. Patients whose condition remained stable after a myocardial infarction, who had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40% and no heart failure, and who had received beta-blocker therapy for at least 1 year after the myocardial infarction were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to discontinue or to continue beta-blocker therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure. The prespecified noninferiority margin was an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of 1.4. RESULTS: A total of 2540 patients underwent randomization; 1246 were assigned to beta-blocker discontinuation and 1294 to beta-blocker continuation. The mean age of the patients was 63.2 years, and 12.8% were women. At a median follow-up of 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.5 to 3.5), a primary end-point event had occurred in 58 patients (4-year Kaplan-Meier estimate, 7.2%) in the discontinuation group and in 74 patients (4-year Kaplan-Meier estimate, 9.0%) in the continuation group (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.57 to 1.13; P = 0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who received beta-blocker therapy beyond the first year after a myocardial infarction, discontinuation of beta-blocker therapy was noninferior to continuation with respect to a composite of death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center in the Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea; SMART-DECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04769362.).
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.