Why the study?
Do ARBs reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations compared to placebo or ACE inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure and high-risk acute MI?
Do ARBs reduce all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations compared to placebo or ACE inhibitors in patients with chronic heart failure and high-risk acute MI?
ARBs demonstrate similar efficacy to ACE inhibitors for reducing all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with chronic heart failure and high-risk acute MI, making them suitable alternatives.
ARBs serve as evidence-based alternatives to ACE inhibitors in chronic heart failure; reinforces meta-analytic support for equivalent outcomes versus placebo.
BACKGROUND: 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. PURPOSE: 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 SOURCES: Data from original research published through 13 November 2003. STUDY SELECTION: Predefined criteria were used to identify 24 trials. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers independently collected information on study characteristics and data on all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. DATA SYNTHESIS: 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. LIMITATIONS: Comparative economic data between ARBs and ACE inhibitors are lacking. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: