Svanström Henrik, Pasternak Björn, Melbye Mads, Hviid Anders
Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Mar 1;182:90-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.12.092. Epub 2014 Dec 27.
Angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACEIs) are the first-line treatment for patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). The benefit of ACEIs in HF is regarded as a class effect and different types of agents are used interchangeably. However, evidence on the comparable effectiveness of different ACEIs is scarce. We conducted a registry-based cohort study to assess all-cause mortality associated with the use of enalapril, perindopril, and trandolapril, as compared with ramipril, in patients with systolic HF.
Patients with systolic HF (EF ≤40%), 2003-2012, were identified using the Danish HF Registry. New users of enalapril (n=1807), perindopril (n=1064), ramipril (n=3270), or trandolapril (n=1150), who started treatment within 60days of first-time hospital diagnosis of HF, were selected for inclusion. Subgroup analyses were conducted by sex, age, NYHA-level, EF, and ischemic heart disease. All analyses were adjusted for empirical risk scores for mortality.
During follow-up, 291 deaths were observed among users of enalapril (incidence rate per 100person-years [IR], 10.1), 212 among users of perindopril (IR, 10.5), 568 among users of ramipril (IR, 10.6), and 251 among users of trandolapril (IR, 12.1). No significant differences in all-cause mortality were observed with the use of enalapril (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.82-1.10), perindopril (aHR 1.07, 95% CI 0.92-1.26), or trandolapril (aHR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93-1.26), as compared with ramipril. No significant differences were observed in subgroup analyses.
These findings suggest equal effect of different types of ACEIs on mortality in systolic HF.
血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEIs)是射血分数降低(EF)的心力衰竭(HF)患者的一线治疗药物。ACEIs在HF治疗中的益处被视为类效应,不同类型的药物可互换使用。然而,关于不同ACEIs疗效可比性的证据很少。我们进行了一项基于注册登记的队列研究,以评估与雷米普利相比,依那普利、培哚普利和群多普利在收缩性HF患者中使用时的全因死亡率。
使用丹麦HF注册登记库识别2003年至2012年期间的收缩性HF(EF≤40%)患者。选择在首次医院诊断HF后60天内开始治疗的依那普利新使用者(n = 1807)、培哚普利新使用者(n = 1064)、雷米普利新使用者(n = 3270)或群多普利新使用者(n = 1150)纳入研究。按性别、年龄、纽约心脏协会(NYHA)分级、EF和缺血性心脏病进行亚组分析。所有分析均根据死亡率的经验风险评分进行调整。
随访期间,依那普利使用者中有291例死亡(每100人年发病率[IR],10.1),培哚普利使用者中有212例死亡(IR,10.5),雷米普利使用者中有568例死亡(IR,10.6),群多普利使用者中有251例死亡(IR,12.1)。与雷米普利相比,使用依那普利(调整后风险比[aHR] 0.95,95%置信区间[CI] 0.82 - 1.10)、培哚普利(aHR 1.07,95% CI 0.92 - 1.26)或群多普利(aHR 1.08,95% CI 0.93 - 1.26)时,未观察到全因死亡率的显著差异。亚组分析中也未观察到显著差异。
这些发现表明不同类型的ACEIs对收缩性HF患者死亡率的影响相同。