Verma Subodh, Mamdani Muhammad M, Al-Omran Mohammed, Melo Magda, Rouleau Jean L
Division of Cardiac Surgery, St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Kennan Research Centre, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
J Am Soc Hypertens. 2007 Jul-Aug;1(4):286-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jash.2007.05.003.
Inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system remain a cornerstone of cardiovascular pharmacotherapy. Although angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) have been demonstrated to afford cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with atherosclerosis and preserved left ventricular function, at the present time it is unclear if angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) exert similar benefits. We performed a population-based comparative study to compare the rates of hospital admission for acute coronary syndromes between users of ARBs relative to the use of ACEIs. A retrospective cohort study using population-based administrative databases in Ontario, Canada covering over 1.4 million residents age 65 years and older with access to universal healthcare coverage was conducted. We compared the hospital admission for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) among patients initiated on ARBs as compared to propensity-score matched patients started on ACEIs from 1999 through 2002, using a 3:1 (ACEI:ARB) matching strategy. Each individual was observed for up to 2 years. The primary outcome of interest was an ACS event, defined as the composite of hospital admission for myocardial infarction and/or unstable angina. During over 71,000 person-years of follow-up, we observed 1,295 hospitalizations for ACS. Relative to ACEI users (n = 49,037), rate of hospitalizations for ACS was similar in patients initiated on ARBs (n = 16,456) (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.04. Pre-specified secondary analysis, performed in patients with atherosclerosis, diabetes, and heart failure, also revealed no difference in rates of myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndromes in users of ARBs compared to ACEIs (adjusted relative risk, diabetes: 0.79, 95% CI 0.58-1.07; heart failure: 0.84, 95% CI 0.59-1.20; atherosclerosis: 0.85, 95% CI 0.70-1.04). These data represent the first and largest population based comparative evaluation of ACEI and ARBs on hospitalizations for ACS among new users of each therapy. Our findings suggest that ARBs offer similar reduction in acute coronary syndrome outcomes in elderly patients with atherosclerosis, diabetes or heart failure. These data have important clinical implications, especially since patients over the age of 65 represent the largest users of risk reduction therapy.
肾素 - 血管紧张素系统抑制剂仍然是心血管药物治疗的基石。尽管血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)已被证明可降低动脉粥样硬化和左心室功能正常患者的心血管风险,但目前尚不清楚血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARB)是否具有类似的益处。我们进行了一项基于人群的比较研究,以比较ARB使用者与ACEI使用者急性冠状动脉综合征的住院率。我们利用加拿大安大略省基于人群的行政数据库进行了一项回顾性队列研究,该数据库涵盖了140多万65岁及以上享有全民医保的居民。我们采用3:1(ACEI:ARB)匹配策略,比较了1999年至2002年开始使用ARB的患者与倾向评分匹配的开始使用ACEI的患者急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)的住院情况。对每个人观察长达2年。主要关注的结局是ACS事件,定义为因心肌梗死和/或不稳定型心绞痛住院的综合情况。在超过71000人年的随访期间,我们观察到1295例ACS住院病例。与ACEI使用者(n = 49037)相比,开始使用ARB的患者(n = 16456)的ACS住院率相似(调整后相对风险[aRR] 0.89,95%置信区间[CI] 0.76 - 1.04)。在动脉粥样硬化、糖尿病和心力衰竭患者中进行的预先指定的次要分析也显示,与ACEI使用者相比,ARB使用者的心肌梗死和急性冠状动脉综合征发生率没有差异(调整后相对风险,糖尿病:0.79,95% CI 0.58 - 1.07;心力衰竭:0.84,95% CI 0.59 - 1.20;动脉粥样硬化:0.85,95% CI 0.70 - 1.04)。这些数据代表了对ACEI和ARB在每种治疗新使用者中ACS住院情况的首次也是最大规模的基于人群的比较评估。我们的研究结果表明,ARB在患有动脉粥样硬化、糖尿病或心力衰竭的老年患者中对急性冠状动脉综合征结局的降低作用相似。这些数据具有重要的临床意义,特别是因为65岁以上的患者是风险降低治疗的最大使用者。