Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors Versus Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Acute Coronary Syndrome and Preserved Ventricular Ejection Fraction
| Autor: | María Castiñeira Busto, Sergio Raposeiras-Roubín, Andrés Íñiguez Romo, Luis Manuel Domínguez Rodríguez, Berenice Caneiro Queija, Pablo Domínguez Erquicia, Saleta Fernández Barbeira, Emad Abu-Assi, María Cespón-Fernández, Elena López Rodríguez, Rafael Cobas Paz, Isabel Muñoz Pousa |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Male
medicine.medical_specialty Acute coronary syndrome Ventricular Ejection Fraction Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors 030204 cardiovascular system & hematology Cohort Studies 03 medical and health sciences Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists 0302 clinical medicine Internal medicine medicine Humans cardiovascular diseases 030212 general & internal medicine Myocardial infarction Acute Coronary Syndrome Prospective cohort study Propensity Score Aged Proportional Hazards Models Heart Failure Ejection fraction biology business.industry Hazard ratio Angiotensin-converting enzyme Stroke Volume Middle Aged medicine.disease Survival Rate Heart failure biology.protein Cardiology Female Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business |
| Zdroj: | Angiology. 71(10) |
| ISSN: | 1940-1574 |
| Popis: | Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) showed comparable survival results in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, there is lack of evidence of the comparative effectiveness in preserved LVEF patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the selection between ACEi and ARB in preserved LVEF after an ACS confers a prognostic benefit, based on real life results. We analyzed a cohort of 3006 contemporary patients with LVEF ≥40% after an ACS. A propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis were performed to assess the association between treatment and events (death, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], HF, and combined event) for a mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.1 years. We found no significant differences between ACEi/ARB for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] for ARB: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.70-1.29), AMI (HR for ARB: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.95-1.89), HF (HR for ARB: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85-1.45), or combined end point (death, AMI and HF: HR for ARB: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.92-1.40). In conclusion, there are no prognostic differences between the use of ACEi and ARB in patients with LVEF ≥40% after ACS. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our results. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|