ARBs after ST-elevated MI and preserved EF


There are good data suggesting that ACE inhibitors (ACE-I) are important in patients post STEMI (ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction) and are recommended therapy. however, no data are available on the role of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which are typically used for other ACE-I indications in the 15-20% of patients intolerant of ACE-I. A prospective Korean cohort study was just published in BMJ looking at their post STEMI treatment, assessing the outcomes of 6698 patients from 53 hospitals, all of whom had primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and LV ejection fractions >40%, of whom 1185 (17.7%) were given ARBs, 4564  (68.1%) given ACE-I and 949 (14.2%) neither (see MI preserved EF ARB bmj 2014 in dropbox, or doi: 10.1136/bmj.g6650). median followup of 371 days. this study involved propensity scoring, a technique used in nonrandomized trials to mathematically compensate for covariates that could have influenced treatment allocation (in this case, adjusting for differences in clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics of the groups). results:

--in comparing the groups: those on ARBs (vs ACE-I) were older, had higher creatinine levels, had more LAD artery lesions in the area of infarct, though had lower prevalence of smoking. those in the "neither" group tended to have a higher risk profile at the time of the PCI
--cardiac death or myocardial infarction occurred in 21 patients on ARBs (1.8%), 77 patients on ACE-I (1.7%), but in 33 on neither (3.5%). 
--by propensity matching (1175 pairs), no significant difference between ARBs and ACE-I, with those endpoints in 1.8% in ARB group and 2.0% in ACE-Igroup. propensity matching (803 pairs) between the ARB group and the neither group found the ARB group had 1.7% and the neither group 3.1%, a significant difference (p=0.03)

so, not a randomized controlled trial, but a large trial doing mathematical modeling to try to compensate for underlying potential differences in patients assigned to one of the 3 groups (ARB vs ACE-I vs neither), finding essentially no difference in the hard outcomes of cardiac death or MI between ABR or ACE-I, and that either was much better than neither. there were unanswered questions in this registry cohort, such as the relatively short followup time of 1 year, the dose of meds taken, why patients were assigned to the different groups, and ultimately the numbers of events was pretty small, limiting the statistical power. but, overall this study validates what probably most of us were doing anyway: try an ACE-I, using ARBs with patients who are ACE-intolerant. 

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more