Key result
Sacubitril-valsartan did not significantly reduce cardiovascular death or incident heart failure compared to ramipril in patients with acute myocardial infarction (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78-1.04; P=0.17).
Why the study?
Sacubitril-valsartan reduces hospitalization and cardiovascular death in symptomatic heart failure, but trials comparing its effects with ACE inhibitors in acute myocardial infarction were lacking.
Does sacubitril-valsartan reduce death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by reduced LVEF or pulmonary congestion compared to ramipril?
RCT (n=5,661)
Does sacubitril-valsartan reduce death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by reduced LVEF or pulmonary congestion compared to ramipril?
Sacubitril-valsartan did not significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure compared to ramipril following acute myocardial infarction complicated by reduced LVEF or pulmonary congestion.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support sacubitril-valsartan over ramipril post-MI; challenges extension of ARNI benefits to acute infarction.
BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure, sacubitril-valsartan has been found to reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor. Trials comparing the effects of these drugs in patients with acute myocardial infarction have been lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both to receive either sacubitril-valsartan (97 mg of sacubitril and 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or ramipril (5 mg twice daily) in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization), whichever occurred first. RESULTS: A total of 5661 patients underwent randomization; 2830 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 2831 to receive ramipril. Over a median of 22 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 338 patients (11.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 373 patients (13.2%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 308 patients (10.9%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and in 335 patients (11.8%) in the ramipril group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.07); death from cardiovascular causes in 168 (5.9%) and 191 (6.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.08); and death from any cause in 213 (7.5%) and 242 (8.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.05). Treatment was discontinued because of an adverse event in 357 patients (12.6%) in the sacubitril-valsartan group and 379 patients (13.4%) in the ramipril group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was not associated with a significantly lower incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure than ramipril among patients with acute myocardial infarction. (Funded by Novartis; PARADISE-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02924727.).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study conducted an RCT in Acute myocardial infarction complicated by reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary congestion, or both (n=5,661). Sacubitril-valsartan vs. Ramipril (5 mg twice daily) was evaluated on Death from cardiovascular causes or incident heart failure (outpatient symptomatic heart failure or heart failure leading to hospitalization) (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-1.04, p=0.17). Sacubitril-valsartan did not significantly reduce cardiovascular death or incident heart failure compared to ramipril in patients with acute myocardial infarction (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.78-1.04; P=0.17).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: