Meta-Analysis: Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers in Chronic Heart Failure and High-Risk Acute Myocardial Infarction
- 2 November 2004
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American College of Physicians in Annals of Internal Medicine
- Vol. 141 (9) , 693-704
- https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-141-9-200411020-00011
Abstract
The role of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in treating patients with chronic heart failure and high-risk acute myocardial infarction (MI) has been controversial, and recent clinical trials provide more information on this topic. To quantify the effect of ARBs when compared with placebo (with and without background angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors) and ACE inhibitors on all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure and high-risk acute MI. Data from original research published through 13 November 2003. Predefined criteria were used to identify 24 trials. 2 reviewers independently collected information on study characteristics and data on all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. 24 trials involving 38 080 patients were included. Analysis of chronic heart failure trials revealed that 1) ARBs were associated with reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.00]) and heart failure hospitalizations (OR, 0.64 [CI, 0.53 to 0.78]) as compared with placebo; 2) for ARBs versus ACE inhibitors, all-cause mortality (OR, 1.06 [CI, 0.90 to 1.26]) and heart failure hospitalization (OR, 0.95 [CI, 0.80 to 1.13]) did not differ; 3) and for combinations of ARBs plus ACE inhibitors versus ACE inhibitors alone, all-cause mortality was not reduced (OR, 0.97 [CI, 0.87 to 1.08]) but heart failure hospitalizations were reduced (OR, 0.77 [CI, 0.69 to 0.87]). For patients with high-risk acute MI, 2 randomized trials compared ARBs with ACE inhibitors but did not reveal differences in all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Comparative economic data between ARBs and ACE inhibitors are lacking. Because ACE inhibitors and ARBs do not differ in efficacy for reducing all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure and in patients with high-risk acute MI, ARBs should be regarded as suitable alternatives to ACE inhibitors.Keywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Faculty Opinions recommendation of Effects of candesartan in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction: the CHARM-Preserved Trial.Published by H1 Connect ,2015
- Implications of recent clinical trials for heart failure performance measuresJournal of Cardiac Failure, 2004
- Role of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, and aspirin in anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory treatment of cardiovascular diseasesThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2003
- The ongoing telmisartan alone and in combination with ramipril global endpoint trial programThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2003
- Randomized trial of candesartan cilexetil in the treatment of patients with congestive heart failure and a history of intolerance to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitorsAmerican Heart Journal, 2000
- Meta-analysis of observed mortality data from all-controlled, double-blind, multiple-dose studies of losartan in heart failureThe American Journal of Cardiology, 2000
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Comparison of the effects of losartan and enalapril on clinical status and exercise performance in patients with moderate or severe chronic heart failureJournal of the American College of Cardiology, 1995
- A Comparison of Results of Meta-analyses of Randomized Control Trials and Recommendations of Clinical ExpertsJAMA, 1992
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986