Why the study?
Do angiotensin receptor blockers improve cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure?
Do angiotensin receptor blockers improve cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure?
ARBs are effective alternatives to ACE inhibitors for reducing mortality and morbidity in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, especially in ACE-I intolerant patients, but lack mortality benefit in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.
May support ARBs as ACE-I alternatives in HFrEF; leaves open mortality benefit in HFpEF.
Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have a pharmacological role in the treatment of heart failure through their blockade of the effects of angiotensin II. ARBs, however, lack the potential benefits of inhibiting the breakdown of bradykinin that is seen with ACE-Is. Historically, the medical literature assessing ARBs in the treatment of chronic heart failure have been short in duration and primarily focused on surrogate markers of disease severity. Recent, well-designed clinical trials have shed new light on the potential roles of ARBs in the treatment of chronic heart failure and their effects on mortality in this patient population. In comparison to captopril, losartan has been shown to have similar benefits in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. In patients with systolic dysfunction who are intolerant to ACE-Is, candesartan has been shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality and hospital admissions for heart failure. In combination with ACE-Is, candesartan and valsartan have been shown to improve heart failure morbidity and, with candesartan, reduced cardiovascular mortality in those with systolic dysfunction. These 2 trials show conflicting mortality information regarding the use of triple therapy with ACE-Is, ARBs, and beta-blockers for systolic dysfunction. In patients with heart failure but preserved systolic dysfunction, candesartan showed no effects on mortality and only modest effects on morbidity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Irons et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: