Well those stats/percentages depend on well defined demographics and risk rankings. In low risk, "clinically stable" patients there was little or no difference compared to placebos. However in non cardiac surgery patients, BBs increased mortality by 27%.
In older high risk patients with little or no lifestyle change, the success rate tho greater, was based on 36 months with data suggesting no confirmed additional benefit after 12 months. Additionally, most of these studies were done after a 30 day period for older high risk patients prescribed BBs pre and post surgery who died before 30 day period and were excluded from the data.

BBs in higher dosages are now discouraged as a first line treatment as witnessed by several posting here to lower scripts. The omission of total BBs mortality rate of 27% in these studies cannot be dismissed.
In total there were 10529 patients in nine secure trials, with 162 deaths in 5264 patients randomised to -blockers and 129 deaths in 5265 patients randomised to placebo. In the nine secure studies, -blockers caused a statistically and clinically significant increase in mortality of 27% (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01% to 1.60%, p=0.04). There was little heterogeneity between studies
The more staggering stat is, heart disease and cancer is the #1 and 2 leading cause of death in the US, with more pharmaceutical and medical procedures ever.

Make sure you talk to your doc about this and maybe ask to try a calcium blocker, I could not tolerate a beta blocker but the calcium blocker was fine.

Hwkmn, that was an awesome response. Petey, I think you have met your match. LOL!

@petey - thanks for sharing that dronedarone article.... dronedarone has been billed as a "safer variant of Amiodarone"... but from that article - not so much... I didn't realize Multaq and dronedarone were the same thing. (I don't take these).

I just read this. Actually, hwkmn has presented this in a way that distorts the actual facts. This only applies to STARTING someone on betablockers before surgery and does not apply to those who have surgery and are already on them. Below is a newer article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4140109/

So anyway, betablockers save lives for those that need them. If you are in afib a lot, you need them. Otherwise, you may not make it to surgery. Those on betablockers before surgery for afib should stay on them. according to the above article.

The absolute risk of death is very small. You also have to realize that prescribing betablockers BECAUSE you are having surgery may be worse than a placebo because those people don't NEED them (or they would have been prescribed them way prior to surgey).

ABSOLUTE risk: (From the study and article) A total of 5264 patients were randomized to beta-blockers and 5265 to placebo. There were 162 deaths in the beta-blocker group and 129 deaths in the placebo group. The difference was 162-129= 33 or .6 of 1% for people who are administered betablocker when their overall diagnoses prior to surgery didn't indicate betablockade!

So think about people taking cancer drugs, rhythm drugs (they can cause serious arrhythmias like ventricular fibrillation) or digitalis or any serious drug, when they don't need them. It has to be risky. But if you need them, they save lives, and in the case of afibbers, prevent heart failure.

Hwkmn is anti drug. I'm okay with taking drugs as long as you do the research and maybe get a second opinion.

An anectdote: I, at first, didn't want to take a betablocker because I heard about the fatigue side-effect. I told my doctor that I did TM and biofeedback and that I knew I could control my heart rate with it. So he says "What are you going to do, meditate all day? "

I got a good chuckle, but also got his point.

I hope this presents another view of the decision to take or not take drugs. I also should mention, I don't panic over any one trial until I can look at any of the shortcomings of a study, and most have them, as they are not specific my situation, for example.

Peace, fellow researchers. :-)

petey

There is no medicinal cure for afib so Id be a little weary of any doctor who guaranteed a drug would prevent afib from ever occuring again. Its possible an antiarythmic drug would work long term but I dont know any doctors who would guarantee it.

As for BBs, its possible it is reducing your afib episodes. It did for me for a while.

Keep, ty, just keeping him on his toes.
I believe the title of this post was about fatigue from BBs. Of course it does matter if the wrong application is used from any drug, but isnt that another serious "COD"? Mortality rates due to drugs have no rival, certainly not non adherence rates.
For the record, Hwkmn is no more anti drug than others are anti healthy lifestyle. Personally, I know too many that when presented with the facts of their lifestyle as a detriment, they will choose the drug. I may be anti Standing dose drug, but it would be suicidal for me to carry that label if I had the misfortune of an accident and needed pain meds. I do carry some meds such as Flec, Advil and a few others in the Rx cabinet, but no, I am not on a daily script for anything.
Supplements are not regulated and may not have the same potency/ingredients? Thats true and I advise caution when purchasing from allopathic sites and box stores. I have an idea for Allopaths and the expensive trials. Lets use supplements as the placebo vs drugs. Guarantee they would want to control the dosage and brand of course, such as the fishy fish oil study which used filthy low dose oils.
Its all good tho and tho certainly outnumbered here by allopaths, we all are seeking the same outcome, good health and longevity.

"Of course it does matter if the wrong application is used from any drug, but isnt that another serious "COD"?"

I agree 100%.

Medical doctors don't call themselves allopaths, naturopaths do. I guess it's better to get medical treatment from 'allopaths" and naturopaths, versus psychopaths.