You are leaving Medscape Education
Cancel Continue
Log in to save activities Your saved activities will show here so that you can easily access them whenever you're ready. Log in here CME & Education Log in to keep track of your credits.


POISE Published, Debate on Perioperative Beta Blockers Continues

  • Authors: News Author: Lisa Nainggolan
    CME Author: Désirée Lie, MD, MSEd
  • CME Released: 5/15/2008
  • Valid for credit through: 5/15/2009
Start Activity

Target Audience and Goal Statement

This article is intended for primary care clinicians, cardiologists, surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other specialists who care for patients undergoing noncardiac surgery who are at risk for cardiovascular adverse events.

The goal of this activity is to provide medical news to primary care clinicians and other healthcare professionals in order to enhance patient care.

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

  1. Describe the effect of perioperative extended-release metoprolol on cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and nonfatal cardiac arrest in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.
  2. Describe the effect of perioperative extended-release metoprolol on overall death and stroke in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.


As an organization accredited by the ACCME, Medscape, LLC requires everyone who is in a position to control the content of an education activity to disclose all relevant financial relationships with any commercial interest. The ACCME defines "relevant financial relationships" as financial relationships in any amount, occurring within the past 12 months, including financial relationships of a spouse or life partner, that could create a conflict of interest.

Medscape, LLC encourages Authors to identify investigational products or off-label uses of products regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration, at first mention and where appropriate in the content.


  • Lisa Nainggolan

    Lisa Nainggolan is a journalist for, part of the WebMD Professional Network. She has been with since 2000. Previously, she was science editor of Scrip World Pharmaceutical News, covering news about research and development in the pharmaceutical industry, and a consultant editor of Scrip Magazine. Graduating in physiology from Sheffield University, UK, she began her career as a poisons information specialist at Guy's Hospital before becoming a medical journalist in 1995. She can be reached at [email protected]


    Disclosure: Lisa Nainggolan has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.


  • Brande Nicole Martin

    Brande Nicole Martin is the News CME editor for Medscape Medical News.


    Disclosure: Brande Nicole Martin has disclosed no relevant financial information.

CME Author(s)

  • Désirée Lie, MD, MSEd

    Clinical Professor, Family Medicine, University of California, Orange; Director, Division of Faculty Development, UCI Medical Center, Orange, California


    Disclosure: Désirée Lie, MD, MSEd, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Accreditation Statements

    For Physicians

  • Medscape, LLC is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

    Medscape, LLC designates this educational activity for a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ . Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Medscape Medical News has been reviewed and is acceptable for up to 300 Prescribed credits by the American Academy of Family Physicians. AAFP accreditation begins 09/01/07. Term of approval is for 1 year from this date. This activity is approved for 0.25 Prescribed credits. Credit may be claimed for 1 year from the date of this activity. AAFP credit is subject to change based on topic selection throughout the accreditation year.

    AAFP Accreditation Questions

    Contact This Provider

For questions regarding the content of this activity, contact the accredited provider for this CME/CE activity noted above. For technical assistance, contact [email protected]

Instructions for Participation and Credit

There are no fees for participating in or receiving credit for this online educational activity. For information on applicability and acceptance of continuing education credit for this activity, please consult your professional licensing board.

This activity is designed to be completed within the time designated on the title page; physicians should claim only those credits that reflect the time actually spent in the activity. To successfully earn credit, participants must complete the activity online during the valid credit period that is noted on the title page.

Follow these steps to earn CME/CE credit*:

  1. Read the target audience, learning objectives, and author disclosures.
  2. Study the educational content online or printed out.
  3. Online, choose the best answer to each test question. To receive a certificate, you must receive a passing score as designated at the top of the test. Medscape encourages you to complete the Activity Evaluation to provide feedback for future programming.
You may now view or print the certificate from your CME/CE Tracker. You may print the certificate but you cannot alter it. Credits will be tallied in your CME/CE Tracker and archived for 5 years; at any point within this time period you can print out the tally as well as the certificates by accessing "Edit Your Profile" at the top of your Medscape homepage.

*The credit that you receive is based on your user profile.


POISE Published, Debate on Perioperative Beta Blockers Continues

Authors: News Author: Lisa Nainggolan CME Author: Désirée Lie, MD, MSEdFaculty and Disclosures

CME Released: 5/15/2008

Valid for credit through: 5/15/2009


May 15, 2008 — Publication of the landmark Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE) trial online May 12, 2008, in the Lancet has triggered another heated debate about the pros and cons of using beta blockers perioperatively in noncardiac surgery [1]. In one corner are the authors of POISE, which was first reported at the American Heart Association (AHA) 2007 Scientific Session and which found that beta blockers do more harm than good in this setting; and in the other, two accompanying editorialists, who suggest that it is the POISE protocol—specifically, the doses of beta blocker used and timing of initiation of therapy—that explains the findings and that a different protocol might shift the risk/balance back in favor of using beta blockers in this setting [2].

"What POISE says is that in the dosing we used, we see beta blockers have substantial risk in the perioperative setting," Dr Philip J Devereaux (McMaster University, Hamilton, ON) told heartwire . "And until someone demonstrates with a clear and large randomized controlled trial that an alternative dose is both effective and safe, it's just not rational, not in people's best interests, to be assuming—that's how we got into this trouble in the first place."

Sitting on the fence, but somewhat closer to the POISE investigators than the editorialists, is leading anesthesiologist Dr Martin London (University of California, San Francisco and San Francisco VA Medical Center), who has recently penned an editorial on this very subject in the April 2008 issue of Anesthesia and Analgesia [3]. He told heartwire : "The POISE study is absolutely monumental in terms of its scope and its intentions. These guys deserve a lot of credit for getting to this point when nobody else even got close. I think what we are going to see is any kind of wild enthusiasm about making sure everyone is on beta blockers—that's clearly going to go away. I think the POISE study will be very powerful in that respect."

However, London says he will continue to use beta blockers in certain patients, and he believes that the underlying, chronic risk of the patient is key to determining who should get beta blockers. "You can do risk stratification. The problem is no one has put together a good risk-stratification routine that deals with all the outcomes. We need a meeting of many minds to sort out this problem."

Deaths caused by shock

As background, Devereaux explains that the guidelines that recommend use of beta blockers in the perioperative setting were based on previous studies that were inconclusive and small—only a few hundred patients—and showed conflicting results. "In those trials, beta blockers looked like a panacea, so there's been a big push to make this happen."

But he warns: "If even only 10% of physicians followed these guidelines—which incidentally in the United States are used in quality assessments, where you have people going around ranking hospitals in terms of whether or not they are giving perioperative beta blockers—and if the POISE data are true, then in the past decade 800,000 people would have died prematurely and 500,000 would have had a major stroke perioperatively because we gave beta blockers. I think this is a very similar signal to WHI (Woman's Health Initiative) on [hormone replacement therapy]—at times we are convinced by small trials that something does benefit, but lo and behold, we do a large trial and discover that, rather than preventing, we are causing."

Devereaux first reported POISE—a randomized controlled trial in more than 8000 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery who were not on beta blockers, randomized to either the beta blocker metoprolol or placebo—at the AHA meeting last year. The results showed that the beta blocker reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) but increased the risk of severe stroke and overall death in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. It suggested that for every 1000 patients treated, metoprolol would prevent 15 MIs, but there would be an excess of eight deaths and five severe disabling strokes.

Devereaux told heartwire that the new analysis featured in the Lancet "helps to explain why death went up and stroke went up [with metoprolol]. Death was clearly driven by a hypotensive state, leading to shock, which we've recognized is so common in the perioperative setting, and that's what tipped the balance and why we saw the excess death. Also it's not that simple to predict who will develop shock, and many people who are going to get it are the same people who are going to get a heart attack also."

He and his coinvestigators conclude: "Patients are unlikely to accept the risk associated with perioperative extended-release metoprolol. Current perioperative guidelines that recommend beta-blocker therapy to patients undergoing noncardiac surgery should reconsider their recommendations in light of these findings."

Beta blockers not radioactive, but perioperative environment is special

At the time of the presentation, as reported by heartwire , many experts agreed with Devereaux's conclusions. However, others argued that there were many issues to be resolved with regard to the dosing used in the study, titration of drug, etc.

The editorial accompanying the paper, by Dr Lee A Fleisher (University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia) and Dr Don Poldermans (Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands), suggests that a lower dose of a beta blocker—started a week before surgery rather than the two to four hours before, as in POISE—may still help. They recommend that beta blockers can still be used cautiously "in high-risk patients with proven or suspected coronary artery disease [CAD], preferably supervised by physicians who have experience with perioperative hemodynamics."

But this conclusion is based almost entirely on the results of one small trial in the DECREASE series—which is Poldermans's own trial—says Devereaux. Also, he adds, Fleisher and Poldermans were involved in writing the guidelines on perioperative beta-blocker use. "I have empathy for them," Devereaux says. "Obviously, it's an uncomfortable situation to have been the one making these recommendations and then along come the POISE data, but I think there are things people might confuse when they read this editorial. The real message from POISE is that we should learn from what just happened."

The Lancet paper also includes an updated meta-analysis of all trials in the field, says Devereaux. "The crucial point from this is that all the other trials were showing the same trends despite different dosing. The meta-analysis did show some heterogeneity, but this was explained entirely by the DECREASE trial."

London says Devereaux "has to be careful. I don't think you can say that beta blockers are radioactive." Nevertheless, London believes the editorial is "very biased. Poldermans [who has been very heavily involved in the field] ignores most of the other research outside of his own studies, and his approach all along has been very myopic. His work has been mainly observational, done primarily only on vascular surgery patients and in only one country in the world."

Also, London takes issue with the editorialists' assertions that beta blockers should be given only by someone who's really experienced in hemodynamics. "What does that mean?

"You're going to hear people arguing back and forth about little details of this study, but the overriding thing is that the perioperative environment is nothing like the medical outpatient standard environment, it's the total opposite. The perioperative environment is like putting somebody in a racing car—there are tons of different types of surgeries, tons of different types of stresses, and all very, very unique even within their own specialties." London believes the POISE results should and will change practice.

However, Fleisher told heartwire : "We actually concluded high-dose beta blockade definitely causes harm, so in the end, we said, treat all the underlying causes but if people still have tachycardia, then treat the patient. This is very sensational—they are making a big deal of how we are killing people.

"I'm concerned that people who are taking beta blockers will stop taking them as a result of this or that physicians will stop treating tachycardia [in the perioperative setting] with beta blockers."

Beta blockers can be used, sparingly and carefully

Fleisher stressed to heartwire that US recommendations currently state that perioperative use of beta blockers is a class 1 indication only for those already on beta blockers [who were not studied in POISE] and, second, for patients with a positive stress test undergoing vascular surgery. For most other patients, the indications for beta-blocker use are class 2a or class 2b, he notes.

With regard to the second group for whom this is a class 1 recommendation—patients with a positive stress test undergoing vascular surgery—Fleisher says the committee on guidelines has already discussed changes: "I will be reviewing this and sending it out today."

"What I think will happen is that it will become a class 2b indication—possibly effective but based on limited data," says London. "Like it or not, this is a bombshell in the whole area. What it means is that hospitals that have jumped on the beta-blocker bandwagon fairly aggressively, in large respect to try to boost their performance measures, will have to reconsider."

Nevertheless, there will always be patients in whom it is necessary to use beta blockers, London concludes. "I do a lot of high-risk surgery anesthesia, and I know if I can't control that stress period with an anesthetic drug, I will get a beta blocker out and use that sparingly and carefully. Most of the time, I don't see any big drops in blood pressure [BP] or heart rate."

London says this is one of the problems with POISE, however. "We just don't know to what extent this happened in POISE. We'll never know, because it's just too large a study for them to report. That's the thing with a large, simple trial, you don't collect a whole lot of data, you just collect the essential, that's the only way you can get it done. So it's unlikely we will ever hear exactly what the blood pressure was at what time in 8000 patients."

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Australia National Health and Medical Research Council, the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo) in Spain, the British Heart Foundation, and AstraZeneca. Disclosures for the authors are listed in the paper.


  1. POISE Study Group. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2008. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08) 60601-7. Available at:
  2. Fleisher LA and Poldermans D. Perioperative beta blockade: where do we go from here? Lancet 2008. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08) 60662-5. Available at:
  3. London MJ. Quo vadis, perioperative beta blockade? Are you "POISE'd" on the brink? Anesth Analg 2008;106:1025-1030.

The complete contents of Heartwire , a professional news service of WebMD, can be found at, a Web site for cardiovascular healthcare professionals.

Clinical Context

According to the POISE Study Group, worldwide, 100 million adults undergo noncardiac surgery every year, and more than 1 million patients are likely to have cardiovascular (CV) complications. Noncardiac surgery increases myocardial oxygen demand with the potential for beta blockers to reduce the risk for perioperative CV events. However, according to the study group, studies have been small, and concerns about the risk for hypotension and bradycardia have been expressed.

This is a large, multinational, randomized trial conducted at 190 hospitals in 23 countries to examine the effect of extended-release metoprolol succinate on postoperative CV events and on mortality in patients at risk for CV events.

Study Highlights

  • Included were patients older than 45 years undergoing noncardiac surgery with a length of stay of at least 24 hours with a history of CAD, peripheral artery disease (PAD), heart failure within 3 years or undergoing major vascular surgery, or meeting at least 3 of 7 cardiac risk factor criteria.
  • Excluded were those with a heart rate of 50 beats per minute or lower, with second- or third-degree heart block, receiving a beta-blocker or coronary bypass graft surgery within 5 years, or receiving verapamil.
  • Patients were randomly assigned to receive either extended-release metoprolol 100 mg (n = 4174) or placebo (n = 4177).
  • The first dose was given within 2 to 4 hours before surgery if the patient's heart rate was above 50 beats per minute and systolic BP was above 100 mm Hg.
  • The postoperative dose was given within 6 hours of surgery unless the BP or heart rate was low, when the dose was postponed to after 6 hours.
  • Oral metoprolol was then given at 200 mg daily for 30 days.
  • Those unable to take oral metoprolol were given intravenous metoprolol perioperatively as 15 mg in 25 mL normal saline infused for more than 60 minutes.
  • Heart rate and BP were checked at 10, 30, and 60 minutes.
  • An electrocardiogram was recorded at 6 to 12 hours, and creatine kinase-MB or troponin levels were measured at the first, second, and 30th postoperative days to exclude MI.
  • The prespecified primary outcome was a composite of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal cardiac arrest at 30 days.
  • Secondary outcomes were individual components of the primary outcome and stroke and overall death at 30 days.
  • Mean age was 69 years; one third of the participants were women, 43% had CAD, 41% had PAD, 15% had a history of stroke, two thirds had a history of hypertension, and 19% were current smokers.
  • Significantly fewer participants in the metoprolol group experienced the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; P = .0399).
  • There were fewer fatal MIs in the metoprolol group (HR, 0.73; P = .0017).
  • There were fewer nonfatal MIs (HR, 0.70; P = .0008) in the metoprolol group.
  • There were fewer revascularization procedures and cases of atrial fibrillation in the metoprolol group.
  • More patients in the metoprolol group had hypotension or bradycardia.
  • More patients in the metoprolol group had a stroke (HR, 2.17; P = .0053), and 49 of 60 strokes were ischemic.
  • More patients in the metoprolol group had a fatal stroke (HR, 1.94; P = .0450).
  • More patients with a nonfatal stroke in the metoprolol group required help to perform daily activities or were incapacitated.
  • Overall mortality was higher for the metoprolol group (HR, 1.33; P = .0317), and sepsis or infection was a more common cause of death in the metoprolol group.
  • Median length of hospital stay was similar (8 days) between the 2 groups, as were nights spent in intensive care.
  • The results showed that for every 1000 patients with a similar risk profile undergoing noncardiac surgery, extended-release metoprolol would prevent 15 MIs, 3 cardiac revascularization procedures, and 7 new cases of atrial fibrillation.
  • However, for every 1000 cases, perioperative metoprolol would result in 8 excess deaths, 5 strokes, 53 cases of clinically important hypotension, and 42 cases of bradycardia.
  • The authors suggested that current perioperative guidelines recommending beta-blockers to patients undergoing noncardiac surgery should reconsider their recommendations in light of the significant risks associated with use of perioperative metoprolol.

Pearls for Practice

  • Use of perioperative metoprolol for patients with CV risks undergoing noncardiac surgery is associated with reduced risk for MI, overall CV death, nonfatal MI, revascularization, and atrial fibrillation.
  • Use of perioperative metoprolol for patients with CV risks undergoing noncardiac surgery is associated with increased risk for overall death, stroke, hypotension, and bradycardia.

CME Test

  • Print