Benefits of early administration of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Effect of sacubitril-valsartan on left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Sacubitril-valsartan has been widely reported for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and improving left ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the effect of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate whether sacubitril-valsartan could reverse left ventricular remodeling and reduce cardiovascular adverse events in AMI patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

Materials and methods

Two researchers independently retrieved the relevant literature from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang database. The retrieval time was limited from inception to 1 June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analyzed.

Results

In total, 21 RCTs involving 2442 AMI patients who underwent PPCI for revascularization were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), sacubitril-valsartan treatment in AMI patients after PPCI significantly reduced left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.11, 95%CI: -4.05∼-2.16, p < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (WMD -7.76, 95%CI: -12.24∼-3.27, p = 0.001), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (WMD -6.80, 95%CI: -9.45∼-4.15, p < 0.001) and left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) (WMD -2.53, 95%CI: -5.30-0.24, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis according to the dose of sacubitril-valsartan yielded a similar result. Meanwhile, PPCI patients using sacubitril-valsartan therapy showed lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.28-0.46, p < 0.001), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.30-0.98, p = 0.041) and HF (OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.26-0.47, p < 0.001) without increasing the risk of renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, or symptomatic hypotension. At the same time, the change of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 3.91, 95%CI: 3.41-4.41, p < 0.001), 6 min walk test (6MWT) (WMD 43.56, 95%CI: 29.37-57.76, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP level (WMD -130.27, 95%CI: -159.14∼-101.40, p < 0.001) were statistically significant.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our meta-analysis indicates that compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril-valsartan may be superior to reverse left ventricular remodeling, improve cardiac function, and effectively reduce the risk of MACE, myocardial reinfarction, and HF in AMI patients after PPCI during follow-up without increasing the risk of adverse reactions including renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, and symptomatic hypotension.

Sacubitril/valsartan improves the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) on the prognosis of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and to provide evidence for expanding the clinical application of SV.

METHODS

PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2023 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SV in patients with AMI. The article was screened and evaluated by the Cochrane 5.1.0 bias risk assessment tool. RevMan5.3 was used for meta-analysis of the outcome indicators.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs involving 7230 patients were included. The results showed that SV increased left ventricular eject fraction ( MD  = 2.86, 95% CI [1.81-3.90], P  < 0.00001) and reduced readmission rate ( RR  = 0.46, 95% CI [0.32-0.68], P  < 0.0001), decreased N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide ( MD = -477.46, 95% CI [-914.96 to -39.96], P  = 0.03), and reduced major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) ( RR  = 0.48, 95% CI [0.27-0.85], P  = 0.01). There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse reaction (AR) between the trial group and the control group ( RR  = 0.88, 95% CI [0.60-1.30], P  = 0.52).

CONCLUSION

SV can effectively improve the prognosis of AMI, prevent complications, and there is no significant difference in safety compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker.

The Safety and Efficacy of the Early Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a significant global cause of mortality, necessitating the exploration of innovative treatments against the condition. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) such as sacubitril/valsartan have demonstrated promise in managing acute heart failure (HF). However, despite favorable evidence from clinical trials for the use of sacubitril/valsartan in AMI, its overall efficacy remains a subject of debate. Hence, we conducted this review and meta-analysis, by adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and aligned with European Society of Cardiology recommendations, to compare sacubitril/valsartan with traditional ACEI/ARB treatments for AMI. We employed Review Manager 5.4 for statistical analysis, the Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 was utilized for quality assessment, and publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis. Our findings revealed that participants treated with sacubitril experienced significantly improved outcomes in terms of HF (OR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.95; p=0.01; I2=23%), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels (MD = -1.58; 95% CI: -1.78 to -1.37, p<0.00001; I2=97%), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.99; p=0.03; I2=44%). However, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD=3.68; 95% CI: 3.35-4.01, p<0.00001; I2=71%) showed greater improvement in the control group compared to the experimental group. Our meta-analysis suggests that sacubitril offers a favorable balance between safety and effectiveness. Sacubitril significantly improved outcomes in terms of HF, MACE, and NT-proBNP levels when compared to the control group. However, improvement in LVEF was notably higher in the control group over the sacubitril/valsartan group.

The Efficacy of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Versus Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Post Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis

Acute myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the leading global healthcare emergencies, contributing to over three million global deaths. The purpose of this study is to investigate further the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing the risk of heart failure (HF) in post-MI patients and providing a clear evidence-based medicine guideline for future use. An electronic database search was conducted on English databases. Eight articles were included, fulfilling our inclusion criteria, i.e., adult patients of ≥18 years with a recent diagnosis of acute MI. Pooled analysis was done using Review Manager version 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, England), and the data for each outcome were analyzed as dichotomous variables. A total of eight clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. Six studies analyzed the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI combination. The pooled analysis reported a significant increase in the risk of hypotension (relative risk {RR}: 1.29 {1.18, 1.41}) in the sacubitril/valsartan compared to the ACEI alone group. In addition, a significant increase was observed in the left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) after using the sacubitril/valsartan combination compared to using ACEI alone (RR: 3.08 {2.68, 4.48}). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of mortality rate (RR: 0.86 {0.73, 1.02}), the risk of heart failure (RR: 0.62 {0.39, 1.00}), the frequency of recurrent MI (RR: 0.86 {0.27, 2.76}), and the mean difference of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (weighted mean difference {WMD}: -174.36 {-414.18, 65.46}) between both the groups. However, the sacubitril/valsartan combination proved to be beneficial in significantly reducing the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.64 {0.48, 0.84}) and rehospitalizations (RR: 0.53 {0.39, 0.71}) as compared to ACEI post MI. Additionally, sacubitril/valsartan and ARB's combination was reported in two studies. This led to a significant decrease in NT-proBNP concentration (WMD: -71.91 {-138.43, -5.39}) post MI in the sacubitril/valsartan combination group compared to the ARB usage alone. However, no significant difference was observed in the improvement of LVEF (WMD: 0.88 {-5.11, 6.87}) between both groups. Although the sacubitril/valsartan combination has no difference in mortality and outcomes compared to ACEI, there is evidence that using it proves to be more beneficial post MI compared to ACEI and ARB usage alone.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac reverse remodeling and cardiac resynchronization in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Introduction

In 2014, the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) has shown that sacubitril/valsartan can reduce the risk of hospitalization and death from cardiovascular causes more effectively than enalapril (an ACEI) in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Similarly, the PARADIGM-HF trial (Comparison of Sacubitril-Valsartan vs. Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized from an Acute Heart Failure Episode) came to similar conclusions and extended the PARADIGM-HF trial results in 2019. Since then, numerous new studies have provided further insight in HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan can reduce N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, increase left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), reverse ventricular remodeling, and reduce other non-fatal manifestations of clinical deterioration as compared to ACEI/ARB. However, few trials have compared the effects of these drugs in patients shortly after AMI. Therefore, it is necessary to further explore the clinical efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in patients with AMI.

Methods

We conducted an open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial to determine the superiority in ameliorating ventricular remodeling and preventing of heart failure in patients with AMI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 148 patients were randomly assigned (85 to sacubitril/valsartan and 63 to valsartan).

Results

LAV, LVDV, and LVSV were all decreased in the sacubitril/valsartan group when compared with before treatment, but there was no difference between the sacubitril/valsartan group and the valsartan group. In addition, compared with before treatment in the sacubitril/valsartan group, the heart global work index (GWI) and the global work efficiency (GWE) increased, while the heart global wasted work (GWW) decreased. Patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group have similar MACE and adverse side effects to those in the valsartan group.

Conclusion

Sacubitril/valsartan has the same performance as valsartan in inhibiting ventricular remodeling and preventing heart failure after PCI in patients with AMI, and its clinical application is safe. It provides a clinical foundation for the application of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with AMI.

Clinical efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan combined with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after reperfusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Several studies have investigated the combined use of sacubitril- valsartan after reperfusion in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the sample sizes of these studies were small and their results were somewhat heterogeneous. To determine the effect of sacubitril-valsartan on myocardial ischemia-reperfusion.

Methods

Search PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, CNKI database, VIP database and Wanfang digital journal full-text database for eligible articles from their date of inception up to April, 2022. All data were meta-analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 16.0 software.

Results

A total of 23 studies including 2,326 patients with acute STEMI were included. These results of this meta-analysis indicated that left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) value within 6 months after surgery (OR, 4.29; 95% confidence interval, 3.78-4.80; P < 0.00001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) value within 6 months after surgery (OR, -3.11; 95% CI, -3.87 to -2.35; P < 0.00001) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) value 6 months after operation (OR, -6.22; 95% CI, -7.10 to -5.35; P < 0.00001) are better than without sacubitril and valsartan.

Conclusion

To sum up the above, the results of this study suggest that sacubitril- valsartan can reduce the reperfusion injury of ischemic myocardium by improving cardiac function within a follow-up period of 6 months.

Molecular mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan in cardiac remodeling

Cardiovascular diseases have become a major clinical burden globally. Heart failure is one of the diseases that commonly emanates from progressive uncontrolled hypertension. This gives rise to the need for a new treatment for the disease. Sacubitril/valsartan is a new drug combination that has been approved for patients with heart failure. This review aims to detail the mechanism of action for sacubitril/valsartan in cardiac remodeling, a cellular and molecular process that occurs during the development of heart failure. Accumulating evidence has unveiled the cardioprotective effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cellular and molecular modulation in cardiac remodeling, with recent large-scale randomized clinical trials confirming its supremacy over other traditional heart failure treatments. However, its molecular mechanism of action in cardiac remodeling remains obscure. Therefore, comprehending the molecular mechanism of action of sacubitril/valsartan could help future research to study the drug’s potential therapy to reduce the severity of heart failure.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy and recurrence of atrial fibrillation after radiofrequency catheter ablation: A propensity-matched cohort study

Background

Compared with conventional medicines, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) could further improve the prognosis for multiple cardiovascular diseases, such as heart failure, hypertension, and myocardial infarction. However, the relationship between ARNI therapy and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after radiofrequency catheter ablation is currently unknown.

Methods

This study is a retrospective cohort study. Patients with consecutive persistent or paroxysmal AF undergoing first-time radiofrequency ablation were enrolled from February 2018 to October 2021. We compared the risk of AF recurrence in patients with catheter ablation who received ARNI with the risk of AF recurrence in those who received the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI). The propensity-score matched analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of ARNI. We used a Cox regression model to evaluate AF recurrence events.

Results

Among 679 eligible patients, 155 patients with ARNI treatment and 155 patients with ACEI treatment were included in the analyses. At a median follow-up of 228 (196–322) days, ARNI as compared with ACEI was associated with a lower risk of AF recurrence [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.24–0.63; p &lt; 0.001]. In addition, no interaction was found in the subgroup analysis.

Conclusion

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor treatment was associated with a decreased risk of AF recurrence after first-time radiofrequency catheter ablation.

Protective effect of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A meta‑analysis

To evaluate the effects and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), a total of four databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched. Using a combination of medical subject headings and entry terms, the final search was performed in July 2021. A manual search of cross-references from the original articles was also conducted. The meta-analysis was subsequently performed with Revman 5.3 software and a total of four studies comprising 586 patients were included. The results disclosed a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) [odds ratio (OR), 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30-0.73; P=0.0007], readmission (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.71; P=0.0006), incidence of acute heart failure (AHF) (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.71; P=0.0007) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide [standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.88; 95% CI, -1.55-(-0.21); P=0.01] in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with that in the control group, and a random effects model was used to pool these data. No significant differences were identified in the incidence of hypotension (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 0.55-15.51; P=0.21), adverse events (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.42-11.37; P=0.35), left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference, 1.96; 95% CI, -0.84-4.76; P=0.17) or soluble suppression of tumorigenesis-2 (SMD, -0.45; 95% CI, -1.62-0.71; P=0.45) according to the random effects model. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis revealed that sacubitril/valsartan was able to effectively reduce the incidence of MACCEs, readmission and AHF in patients with AMI after revascularization without any obvious adverse events.

Cardiopulmonary exercise test-based assessment of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the blood pressure response to exercise in patients with acute myocardial infarction during hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) on cardiopulmonary function and blood pressure response to exercise during hospitalization in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) based on the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).

METHODS

A total of 265 AMI patients were treated with either perindopril or S/V within 24 hours of admission. CPET was completed for all patients before discharge. There were 182 cases in the perindopril group and 83 cases in the S/V group.

RESULTS

The proportion of exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) was higher in the S/V group than in the perindopril group (10.8% vs 1.6%, X² = 11.148, P = .001). The resting heart rate (HR), resting diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and warm-up DBP were lower in the S/V group than in the perindopril group (P < .05). The resting systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 9.0 mmHg lower (115.7 ± 17.5 vs 106.7 ± 15.0, P < .001), the SBP during warm-up was 9.5 mmHg lower (124.8 ± 23.7 vs 115.3 ± 22.5,P = .002), the SBP at the anaerobic threshold (AT) was 10.5 mmHg lower (135.3 ± 24.8 vs 127.1 ± 25.1,P = .021),the SBP at max watts was 11.5 mmHg lower (148.9 ± 26.4 vs 137.4 ± 26.4,P = .001), and the SBP during one-minute recovery was 12.3 mmHg lower (146.5 ± 27.1 vs 134.2 ± 24.4, P = .001)in the S/V group than in the perindopril group. The S/V group had a higher oxygen ventilation equivalent and carbon dioxide ventilation equivalent (VE/VCO₂) at AT and a lower oxygen uptake-work rate relationship during max watts (P < .05). The differences in the oxygen pulse, stroke volume, peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 peak}), and VE/VCO₂ slope were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with S/V was able to reduce the exercise blood pressure in patients with AMI during hospitalization, but did not significantly improve the VO_{2 peak}, VE/VCO₂ slope, or exercise tolerance.

Clinical outcomes of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patients with acute heart failure: A multi-institution study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of initiating sacubitril/valsartan therapy among patients who are hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF) is unclear.

METHODS

A cohort of 3736 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) hospitalized for acute HF was identified from Chang Gung Research Database between January 1, 2016 and August 31, 2019. The risks of rehospitalization for HF and death associated with sacubitril/valsartan therapy compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) therapy were evaluated. We used stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance the baseline covariates. The risks of fatal and non-fatal outcomes between the groups were compared using a Cox proportional hazard model and Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard model, respectively.

FINDINGS

The composite of rehospitalization for HF and death occurred in 22.9% of the patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared to 32.6% in the ACEI/ARB group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-0.97) after a mean follow-up period of 11.8 months. The sacubitril/valsartan group had a lower risk of rehospitalization for HF (subdistribution HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.92) and all-cause death (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27-0.94). There were no significant differences in the rates of worsening renal function or severe hyperkalemia between the two groups.

INTERPRETATION

In real-world practice, initiating sacubitril/valsartan therapy among patients with HFrEF who were hospitalized for acute HF was associated with a lower rate of rehospitalization for HF and death compared with ACEI/ARB therapy.

FUNDING

This study was supported by Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

The benefits of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

We aimed to investigate whether sacubitril-valsartan could further improve the prognosis, cardiac function, and left ventricular (LV) remodelling in patients following acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception to 10 May 2021 to identify potential articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analysed. Thirteen RCTs, covering 1358 patients, were analysed. Compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), sacubitril-valsartan did not significantly reduced the cardiovascular mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.93, P = 0.434] and the rate of myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.46, P = 0.295) of patients following AMI, but the rate of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.66, P < 0.001) and the change of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) [weighted mean difference (WMD) 5.49, 95% CI 3.62 to 7.36, P < 0.001] were obviously improved. The N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-ProBNP) level (WMD -310.23, 95% CI -385.89 to -234.57, P < 0.001) and the LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (WMD -3.16, 95% CI -4.59 to -1.73, P < 0.001) were also significantly lower in sacubitril-valsartan group than in ACEI/ARB group. Regarding safety, sacubitril-valsartan did not increase the risk of hypotension, hyperkalaemia, angioedema, and cough.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that early administration of sacubitril-valsartan may be superior to conventional ACEI/ARB to decrease the risk of hospitalization for HF, improve the cardiac function, and reverse the LV remodelling in patients following AMI.

Efficacy and safety of early initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patients after acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis

Some randomized controlled trials have compared the effectiveness and safety outcomes between early initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients after acute myocardial infarction. Therefore, our current meta-analysis aimed to clarify the confusion. Four Databases and relevant grey literature were searched for studies from inception to July 2, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Four studies involving 6154 patients were included to perform meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that the left ventricular ejection fraction in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group was higher than the ACEI group (SMD: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.55, P = .000), the incidence of major adverse cardiac events in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group was lower than the ACEI group (RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.46-0.82, P = .001), while the incidences of cardiac death (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81-1.24, P = 1.000) and the heart failure hospitalization (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.37-1.03, P = .065) showed no difference. For the incidences of myocardial infarction and the adverse side effects, there was no obvious advantage of the Sacubitril/Valsartan group over the ACEI group, because the meta-analysis was not performed due to the limited trials. This study indicated that early initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patients after acute myocardial infarction was superior to ACEI in reducing the risks of major adverse cardiac events and left ventricular ejection fraction increasing. As for the other outcomes (the incidences of cardiac death, the heart failure hospitalization, the myocardial infarction and the adverse side effects), Sacubitril/Valsartan showed no obvious advantage than ACEI.

Hypothermia therapy for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the role of systemic therapeutic hypothermia remains controversial. We performed a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of systemic therapeutic hypothermia in patients with AMI receiving PCI.

METHODS

This study will use the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, China Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Wanfang Database, and Ongoing Clinical Trials Database. The search terms were hypothermia, cooling, myocardial infarction, myocardial ischemia and acute coronary syndrome. Quality assessment of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

The findings of this study will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review will provide evidence to determine whether hypothermia therapy is an effective and safe intervention for patients with AMI receiving PCI.Registration number: 10.17605/OSF.IO/9XJSB.