Why the study?
Does the use of ACEI and BB reduce mortality in heart failure patients in observational studies?
Does the use of ACEI and BB reduce mortality in heart failure patients in observational studies?
Observational studies validate the effectiveness of ACEI and BB in heart failure populations often underrepresented in RCTs, such as the elderly and those with renal insufficiency.
Supports ACEI/BB use in elderly HF patients across EF and renal function; extends RCT evidence to underrepresented groups.
AIMS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the golden standard for the assessment of drug efficacy. Little is known about the add-on value of observational studies in heart failure (HF). We aimed to assess the contribution of observational studies to actual knowledge regarding the effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), and beta-blockers (BB) in HF. METHODS: Observational studies that assessed the effectiveness of ACEI and BB in HF were identified by searching Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database (1990-2005) and the bibliographies of published articles. Cohort, case-control and time-series analysis studies were considered for inclusion. Studies with <100 patients and those who did not perform a multivariate analysis were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 23 cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies of ACEI and BB showed a decrease in mortality with drug use in elderly patients with a broad range of ejection fraction (EF), and in those with depressed EF. Additionally, they showed a decrease in mortality in patients with renal insufficiency. The effect of ACEI and BB in HF with preserved EF was not clear, although last evidence suggests a potential benefit. Low-dose ACEI and BB may have beneficial effects. Target doses of ACEI seemed superior to low doses, but there was no clear dose-response relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies in HF validate the effectiveness of ACEI and BB in populations underrepresented or excluded from RCTs. Observational studies of drug effectiveness provide relevant additional information for clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dobre et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: