Tu Karen, Gunraj Nadia, Mamdani Muhammad
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Am J Cardiol. 2006 Jul 1;98(1):6-9. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2006.01.044. Epub 2006 Apr 27.
Whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are interchangeable and equally efficacious after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is controversial. We assessed whether ramipril was superior to other ACE inhibitors after AMI as suggested by a previously published study. We performed a retrospective cohort study using linked administrative databases on >1.4 million elderly residents in the province of Ontario who were admitted to the hospital for AMI, survived >or=30 days after discharge, and were initiated on an ACE inhibitor after AMI and remained on the same ACE inhibitor from April 1, 1997 to March 31, 2000. We followed patients for 2 years and measured readmission for AMI or mortality, together or alone. Our cohort included 5,408 elderly patients. Compared with patients on enalapril, there was no significant difference for the combined end points of readmission for AMI or mortality across users of ramipril (adjusted hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.15), lisinopril (adjusted hazard ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.25), or other ACE inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.88, 1.32). In conclusion, the findings of this study support a class effect among ACE inhibitors in treatment after AMI.
急性心肌梗死(AMI)后血管紧张素转换酶(ACE)抑制剂是否可互换且疗效相同存在争议。我们评估了雷米普利是否如先前发表的研究所暗示的那样,在AMI后优于其他ACE抑制剂。我们使用安大略省超过140万老年居民的关联行政数据库进行了一项回顾性队列研究,这些居民因AMI入院,出院后存活≥30天,在AMI后开始使用ACE抑制剂,并在1997年4月1日至2000年3月31日期间一直使用同一种ACE抑制剂。我们对患者进行了2年的随访,并测量了AMI再入院或死亡率,单独或合并计算。我们的队列包括5408名老年患者。与使用依那普利的患者相比,使用雷米普利(调整后风险比0.95,95%置信区间0.79至1.15)、赖诺普利(调整后风险比1.02,95%置信区间0.84至1.25)或其他ACE抑制剂(调整后风险比1.08,95%置信区间0.88至1.32)的患者在AMI再入院或死亡率的合并终点方面没有显著差异。总之,本研究结果支持ACE抑制剂在AMI后治疗中的类效应。