Suppr超能文献

血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂、血管紧张素受体阻滞剂及其联合用药与射血分数降低的心力衰竭患者预后的比较关联

Comparative associations between angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers and their combination, and outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

作者信息

Savarese Gianluigi, Edner Magnus, Dahlström Ulf, Perrone-Filardi Pasquale, Hage Camilla, Cosentino Francesco, Lund Lars H

机构信息

Karolinska Institute, Department of Medicine, Cardiology Unit, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.

Karolinska Institute, Department of Medicine, Cardiology Unit, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Int J Cardiol. 2015 Nov 15;199:415-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2015.07.051. Epub 2015 Jul 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF), but there is limited data on ARB vs. ACE-I and their combination in unselected populations. The purpose of this study was to compare the associations between the use of ACE-I, ARB and their combination, and outcomes in HFREF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively studied 22,947 patients with HFREF (ejection fraction<40%) enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry who received ACE-I but not ARB (n=15,801, 69%), ARB but not ACE-I (n=4335, 19%), their combination (n=571, 2%) or neither (n=2240, 10%). As compared with ACE-I alone, the hazard ratios (HRs) for ARB alone for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% CI=0.91-1.03; p=0.27), for HF hospitalization 1.08 (CI=1.02-1.15; p<0.01) and for the composite outcome 1.03 (CI=0.99-1.08; p=0.15). ACE-I and ARB combination had for death HR=0.98 (95% CI=0.84-1.14; p=0.76), for HF hospitalization HR=1.49 (CI=1.33-1.68; p<0.01) and for the composite outcome HR=1.35 (CI=1.21-1.50; p<0.01). Use of neither ACE-I nor ARB was associated with HR for death 1.41 (CI=1.33-1.50; p<0.01), for HF hospitalization 1.16 (CI=1.08-1.25; p<0.01) and for the composite outcome 1.28 (CI=1.21-1.35; p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

This large generalizable analysis confirms the current recommendation of using ACE-I as first choice in HFREF. ARB can be considered an alternative in patients who cannot use ACE-I but should not routinely replace ACE-I. The combination of ACE-I and ARB was not associated with additional benefit over either one alone, and may potentially be harmful.

摘要

背景

血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACE-Is)和血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARBs)被推荐用于射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HFREF)患者,但在未选择的人群中,关于ARB与ACE-I及其联合使用的数据有限。本研究的目的是比较ACE-I、ARB及其联合使用与HFREF患者预后之间的关联。

方法与结果

我们对瑞典心力衰竭登记处登记的22947例HFREF患者(射血分数<40%)进行了前瞻性研究,这些患者接受了ACE-I但未接受ARB(n=15801,69%)、ARB但未接受ACE-I(n=4335,19%)、两者联合使用(n=571,2%)或两者均未使用(n=2240,10%)。与单独使用ACE-I相比,单独使用ARB的全因死亡率风险比(HRs)为0.97(95%CI=0.91-1.03;p=0.27),心力衰竭住院风险比为1.08(CI=1.02-1.15;p<0.01),复合结局风险比为1.03(CI=0.99-1.08;p=0.15)。ACE-I和ARB联合使用的死亡HR=0.98(95%CI=0.84-1.14;p=0.76),心力衰竭住院HR=1.49(CI=1.33-1.68;p<0.01),复合结局HR=1.35(CI=1.21-1.50;p<0.01)。既不使用ACE-I也不使用ARB与死亡HR为1.41(CI=1.33-1.50;p<0.01)、心力衰竭住院HR为1.16(CI=1.08-1.25;p<0.01)、复合结局HR为1.28(CI=1.21-1.35;p<0.01)相关。

结论

这项大型可推广分析证实了目前在HFREF中使用ACE-I作为首选的建议。对于不能使用ACE-I的患者,ARB可被视为一种替代药物,但不应常规替代ACE-I。ACE-I和ARB联合使用与单独使用其中任何一种相比,并未带来额外益处,且可能有潜在危害。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验