0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Outcomes Between Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients With Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are usually treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare outcomes between ACEi and ARB in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Three major online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were thoroughly searched to find studies comparing ACEi and ARB in patients with MI from January 1, 2000, onwards, without language or publication restrictions. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and hospitalization due to heart failure. A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled estimates showed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.20), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.88-1.20), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89-1.12), stroke (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.80-1.32), and hospitalization due to heart failure (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90-1.09). These results suggest that ACEi and ARB have similar impacts on clinical outcomes across a broad spectrum of MI patients, reinforcing their roles in post-MI treatment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation

            2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events.

              In patients who have vascular disease or high-risk diabetes without heart failure, angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors reduce mortality and morbidity from cardiovascular causes, but the role of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in such patients is unknown. We compared the ACE inhibitor ramipril, the ARB telmisartan, and the combination of the two drugs in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes. After a 3-week, single-blind run-in period, patients underwent double-blind randomization, with 8576 assigned to receive 10 mg of ramipril per day, 8542 assigned to receive 80 mg of telmisartan per day, and 8502 assigned to receive both drugs (combination therapy). The primary composite outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure. Mean blood pressure was lower in both the telmisartan group (a 0.9/0.6 mm Hg greater reduction) and the combination-therapy group (a 2.4/1.4 mm Hg greater reduction) than in the ramipril group. At a median follow-up of 56 months, the primary outcome had occurred in 1412 patients in the ramipril group (16.5%), as compared with 1423 patients in the telmisartan group (16.7%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.09). As compared with the ramipril group, the telmisartan group had lower rates of cough (1.1% vs. 4.2%, P<0.001) and angioedema (0.1% vs. 0.3%, P=0.01) and a higher rate of hypotensive symptoms (2.6% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001); the rate of syncope was the same in the two groups (0.2%). In the combination-therapy group, the primary outcome occurred in 1386 patients (16.3%; relative risk, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07); as compared with the ramipril group, there was an increased risk of hypotensive symptoms (4.8% vs. 1.7%, P<0.001), syncope (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.03), and renal dysfunction (13.5% vs. 10.2%, P<0.001). Telmisartan was equivalent to ramipril in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes and was associated with less angioedema. The combination of the two drugs was associated with more adverse events without an increase in benefit. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153101 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cureus
                Cureus
                2168-8184
                Cureus
                Cureus (Palo Alto (CA) )
                2168-8184
                30 October 2023
                October 2023
                : 15
                : 10
                : e47954
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Medicine, National Autonomous University of Honduras, San Pedro Sula, HND
                [2 ] Medicine, American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, USA
                [3 ] Interventional Cardiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun, IND
                [4 ] Medicine, National Autonomous University of Honduras, Tegucigalpa, HND
                [5 ] Telemetry, Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego, USA
                [6 ] Internal Medicine, Orotta School of Medicine and Dentistry, Asmara, ERI
                [7 ] Medicine, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, ARE
                [8 ] Head and Neck Surgery, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, ETH
                [9 ] General Practice, Mekelle University, Mek'ele, ETH
                [10 ] Critical Care Medicine, United Medical and Dental College, Karachi, PAK
                Author notes
                Article
                10.7759/cureus.47954
                10685053
                38034144
                c39a1e64-edd2-42e3-a972-45c4ecbf5def
                Copyright © 2023, Escobar et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 29 October 2023
                Categories
                Epidemiology/Public Health
                Internal Medicine
                Cardiology

                systematic review and meta-analysis,efficacy,myocardial infarction,angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors,angiotensin ii receptor blockers

                Comments

                Comment on this article