Comparison of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients with diabetes mellitus and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention

Reassess Hospital Costs and Mortality Between Myocardial Infarction With and Without ST-Segment Elevation in a Modern Context

BACKGROUND

Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may have higher hospitalization costs and poorer prognosis than non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was conducted on 758 STEMI patients and 386 NSTEMI patients from January 1, 2020 to May 30, 2023 aimed to investigate the differences in cost and mortality.

RESULTS

STEMI patients had higher maximal troponin I (15,222.5 (27.18, 40,000.00) vs. 2731.5 (10.73, 27,857.25), p < 0.001) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (56% (53%, 59%) vs. 57% (55%, 59%), p < 0.001) compared to NSTEMI patients. The clinical symptoms were mainly persistent or interrupted chest pain/distress in either STEMI or NSTEMI patients. STEMI patients had a significantly higher risk of combined hypotension than NSTEMI patients (8.97% vs. 3.89%, p = 0.002), and IABP was much more frequently used in the STEMI group with a statistical difference (2.90% vs. 0.52%, p = 0.015). STEMI patients have statistically higher hospitalization costs (RMB, ¥) (31,667 (25,337.79, 39,790) vs. 30,506.91 (21,405.96, 40,233.75), p = 0.006) and longer hospitalization days (10 (8, 11) vs. 9 (8, 11), p = 0.001) compared to NSTEMI patients. Although in-hospital mortality was higher in STEMI patients, the difference was not statistically significant (3.56% vs. 2.07%, p = 0.167). Multivariable logistic regression was performed and found that systolic blood pressure and NT-proBNP were risk factors for patient death (OR ≥ 1).

CONCLUSION

STEMI patients are more likely comorbid cardiogenic shock, heart failure complications with higher hospitalization costs and longer hospitalization days. And relatively more use of acute mechanical circulatory support devices such as IABP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2300077885.

Validating the Prognostic Utility of the ABCD-GENE Score in Asian Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients on Clopidogrel

Background

The ABCD-GENE score, which links cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) phenotype and high platelet reactivity (HPR) to the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in clopidogrel users, has been validated in white and Japanese populations. The prognostic implications of the score in other Asian cohorts, however, have been largely unchartered. The aim of this study was to validate the prognostic utility of the ABCD-GENE score in a heterogeneous Asian acute coronary syndrome (ACS) cohort.

Methods and Results

In this single-centre, retrospective cohort evaluation of 423 ACS patients, the objectives were to characterise the best cut-off score for MACE prognostication by comparing the adjusted 1-year risk of MACE between groups above and below the candidate cut-off scores using Cox regression; and for on-clopidogrel HPR prediction using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Youden's index. In the adjusted Cox model, an ABCD-GENE score cut-off at 10 points significantly predicts the 1-year risk of MACE (adjusted HR 3.771; 95% CI [1.041-13.661]). Female sex, baseline LDL, history of ACS and angiotensin receptor blocker use were additional independent predictors of MACE. On ROC analysis the ideal cut-off for HPR prediction was 7 points. However, that did not independently predict the 1-year risk of MACE (adjusted HR 1.595; 95% CI [0.425-5.989]).

Conclusion

The original ABCD-GENE score 10-point cut-off moderately predicts MACE in a heterogeneous, Asian ACS population at 1 year. Additional predictors of MACE were also identified in the present cohort, and these findings should be prospectively validated in larger ACS cohorts.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients With Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are usually treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB). The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare outcomes between ACEi and ARB in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. Three major online databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, were thoroughly searched to find studies comparing ACEi and ARB in patients with MI from January 1, 2000, onwards, without language or publication restrictions. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and hospitalization due to heart failure. A total of 16 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled estimates showed no significant differences between the two groups in terms of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88-1.20), all-cause mortality (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.88-1.20), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89-1.12), stroke (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.80-1.32), and hospitalization due to heart failure (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90-1.09). These results suggest that ACEi and ARB have similar impacts on clinical outcomes across a broad spectrum of MI patients, reinforcing their roles in post-MI treatment.

The impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers on 3-year clinical outcomes in elderly (≥ 65) patients with acute myocardial infarction without hypertension

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARB) on 3-year clinical outcomes in elderly (≥ 65) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients without a history of hypertension who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES).

METHODS

A total of 13,104 AMI patients who were registered in the Korea AMI registry (KAMIR)-National Institutes of Health (NIH) were included in the study. The primary endpoint was 3-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which was defined as the composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization. To adjust baseline potential confounders, an inverse probability weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into two groups: the ACEI group, n = 872 patients and the ARB group, n = 508 patients. After IPTW matching, baseline characteristics were balanced. During the 3-year clinical follow-up, the incidence of MACE was not different between the two groups. However, incidence of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.375; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.166-0.846; p = 0.018) and re-hospitalization due to heart failure (HF) (HR, 0.528; 95% CI, 0.289-0.965; p = 0.038) in the ACEI group were significantly lower than in the ARB group.

CONCLUSION

In elderly AMI patients who underwent PCI with DES without a history of hypertension, the use of ACEI was significantly associated with reduced incidences of stroke, and re-hospitalization due to HF than those with the use of ARB.

Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers on clinical outcomes in hypertensive patients with acute myocardial infarction

There has been a concern that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) may increase myocardial infarction (MI) in hypertensive patients compared with other classes of anti-hypertensive drugs. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) is recommended as a first-line inhibitor of renin-angiotensin system (RASI) in patients with acute MI (AMI), but ARB is also frequently used to control blood pressure. This study investigated the association of ARB vs. ACEI with the long-term clinical outcomes in hypertensive patients with AMI. Among patients enrolled in the nationwide AMI database of South Korea, the KAMIR-NIH, 4,827 hypertensive patients, who survived the initial attack and were taking ARB or ACEI at discharge, were selected for this study. ARB therapy was associated with higher incidence of 2-year major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, all-cause death, MI than ACEI therapy in entire cohort. After propensity score-matching, ARB therapy was still associated with higher incidence of 2-year cardiac death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-2.14; P = 0.001), all-cause death (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.44-2.28; P < 0.001), and MI (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.25-2.46; P = 0.001) than the ACEI therapy. It was concluded that ARB therapy at discharge in hypertensive patients with AMI was inferior to ACEI therapy with regard to the incidence of CD, all-cause death, and MI at 2-year. These data suggested that ACEI be a more appropriate RASI than ARB to control BP in hypertensive patients with AMI.

Impact of renin angiotensin system inhibitor on 3-year clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function: a prospective cohort study from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR)

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are usually treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) if ACEIs are not tolerated. However, there is no data regarding the impact of switching from ACEIs to ARBs on long-term clinical outcomes in AMI patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) systolic function especially beyond 1 year. To investigate the effectiveness of treatment with ACEIs or ARBs on clinical outcomes over 3 years in AMI patients with preserved LV systolic function following percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHOD

It is a prospective cohort study using data from a nationwide large scale registry with 53 hospitals involved in treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Korea. Between March 2011 and September 2015, we enrolled 6236 patients with AMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention and had a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%. Main outcome measures composite of total death or recurrent AMI over 3 years after AMI. Patients were divided into an ACEI group (n = 2945), ARB group (n = 2197), or no renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI) treatment (n = 1094). We analyzed patients who changed treatment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

After the adjustment with inverse probability weighting, the primary endpoints at 1 year, AMI patients receiving ACEIs showed overall better outcomes than ARBs [ARBs hazard ratio (HR) compared with ACEIs 1.384, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-1.71; P = 0.003]. However, 33% of patients receiving ACEIs switched to ARBs during the first year, while only about 1.5% switched from ARBs to ACEIs. When landmark analysis was performed from 1 year to the end of the study, RASI group showed a 31% adjusted reduction in primary endpoint compared to patients with no RASI group (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.97; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

This result suggests that certain patients got benefit from treatment with ACEIs in the first year if tolerated, but switching to ARBs beyond the first year produced similar outcomes. RASI beyond the first year reduced death or recurrent AMI in AMI patients with preserved LV systolic function. CRIS Registration number: KCT0004990.

The impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers on 3-year clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction without hypertension

This study aimed to investigate the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARB) on 3-year clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients without a history of hypertension who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES). A total of 13,104 AMI patients who were registered in the Korea AMI registry (KAMIR)-National Institutes of Health (NIH) were included in the study. The primary endpoint was 3-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which was defined as the composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization. To adjust baseline potential confounders, an inverse probability weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: the ACEI group, n = 4,053 patients and the ARB group, n = 4,107 patients. During the 3-year clinical follow-up, the cumulative incidences of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.843; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.740-0.960; p = 0.010), any repeat revascularization (HR, 0.856; 95% CI, 0.736-0.995; p = 0.044), stroke (HR, 0.613; 95% CI, 0.417-0.901; p = 0.013), and re-hospitalization due to heart failure (HF) (HR, 0.399; 95% CI, 0.294-0.541; p <0.001) in the ACEI group were significantly lower than in the ARB group. In Korean patients with AMI without a history of hypertension, the use of ACEI was significantly associated with reduced incidences of MACE, any repeat revascularization, stroke, and re-hospitalization due to HF than those with the use of ARB.

2020 Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction Expert Consensus Document on Pharmacotherapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical practice guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association summarize the available evidence and provide recommendations for health professionals to enable appropriate clinical decisions and improve clinical outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, most current guidelines are based on studies in non-Asian populations in the pre-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era. The Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry is the first nationwide registry to document many aspects of AMI from baseline characteristics to treatment strategies. There are well-organized ongoing and published randomized control trials especially for antiplatelet therapy among Korean patients with AMI. Here, members of the Task Force of the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction review recent published studies during the current PCI era, and have summarized the expert consensus for the pharmacotherapy of AMI.

Comparative Efficacy of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Although angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are considered as an alternative for those with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) intolerance, the comparative effectiveness of ARBs and ACEi remains controversial in patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We aimed to compare the clinical effects of the two types of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in patients who underwent CABG. From January 2001 to January 2015, among the 5456 patients, data from 1198 (20.1%) patients who used a RAAS inhibitor at discharge were analyzed. These 1198 patients were classified into ACEi (N = 900) and ARB (N = 298) groups. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) during a median follow-up period of 48 months. Propensity-matched analysis revealed that the incidence of MACCE over a 48 month follow-up period did not differ between the groups (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.36–1.21; p = 0.17), but it was significantly lower in the ARB group during the 12 month follow-up period (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22–0.96; p = 0.04). In conclusion, ARBs may have comparable protective effects to ACEi and be a reasonable alternative for intolerant patients after CABG. The beneficial effects of ARBs depending on follow-up period require further investigation.

ACE Inhibitors Versus ARBs in Patients With NSTEMI With Preserved LV Systolic Function Who Underwent PCI With New Generation Drug-Eluting Stents

The relative superiority of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) with preserved left ventricular systolic function in the era of new generation drug-eluting stents is not well established. A total of 6436 patients with NSTEMI (ACEIs group: n = 3965 vs ARBs group: n = 2471) were enrolled. The major clinical end point was the occurrences of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (re-MI), and any repeat revascularization. After propensity score matching analysis, the cumulative incidences of MACEs (hazard ratio, 1.334; 95% confidence interval, 1.045-1.703; P = .021), any repeat revascularization, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) in the ARB group were significantly higher than that in the ACEI group. However, the cumulative incidences of all-cause death, cardiac death, re-MI, target lesion revascularization, and non-TVR were similar between the 2 groups. Hence, although the mortality and re-MI reduction benefits were similar between the 2 groups, the ACEIs group showed more prominent ability to decrease the occurrences of MACEs, any repeat revascularization, and TVR compared to the ARBs group in these patients during a 2-year follow-up period.