Observational studyBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Outcomes of beta-blocker use in people living with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and a co-existent beta-blocker indicated cardiovascular disease. Insights from a global federated network.
Observational study in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBeta-blockers (BBs) are a cornerstone of the management of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) such as heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and atrial fibrillation (AF). Their use in patients with co-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains controversial due to concerns about potential bronchoconstriction and respiratory side effects. This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of BBs in patients with COPD and co-existing cardiovascular conditions using real-world data.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, propensity score-matched analysis using the TriNetX global federated research network. Patients with a diagnosis of both COPD and CVD (HFrEF, AMI, or AF) between January 2010 and January 2023 were included. Outcomes assessed over a one-year follow-up included all-cause mortality (primary outcome), emergency admissions (EA), and acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on cardiovascular indication, BB selectivity, sex, and age group.
resultsA total of 394,476 patients were included; 241,837 were BB users and 152,639 were non-users. After propensity score matching (n = 103,249 per group), there was no significant difference in mortality (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94-1.02). BB use was associated with an increased risk of EA (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.22-1.40) and a modest increase in AECOPD (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.04). Findings were consistent across subgroups.
conclusionIn people with COPD and a cardiac indication for BB use, the use of BBs was not associated with mortality benefit but was associated with a modest increased risk of AECOPD and a pronounced risk of increased EA. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable. This study is not a clinical trial; therefore, no trial registry, registration number, or registration date is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.