Effects of canrenoate plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors alone on systolic and diastolic function in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction

Life-saving Drug or Potential Threat? The Role of Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists in Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been studied as a potential therapeutic option to improve outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). Although several RCTs have evaluated the effectiveness of MRAs in post-MI patients, the specific effects remain debated. We systematically searched databases including Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The primary efficacy outcome was death from any cause. Secondary efficacy outcomes included death from cardiovascular causes, death from myocardial infarction, and others. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the presence of heart failure and the type of MRA used. Safety outcomes included hyperkalemia, hypokalemia, breast tenderness, gynecomastia. A total of 13 RCTs involving 17,851 patients were included. The results demonstrated that MRAs significantly reduced the risk of death from any cause (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.79-0.95; p = 0.004). Subgroup analysis indicated that the effectiveness of MRAs varied based on the presence of heart failure. MRAs significantly reduced the risk of death from cardiovascular causes in heart failure patients (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.78-0.97), but had no significant effect in patients without heart failure (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.34-1.38). Furthermore, subgroup analysis based on different MRA drugs showed varying effects on outcomes. While some adverse events, such as hyperkalemia (RR 1.95; 95% CI 1.55-2.46; p < 0.01), were significantly more frequent, other safety events did not show significant differences. MRAs improve cardiovascular outcomes in MI patients, especially in those with heart failure. When choosing a specific MRA drug, Eplerenone or Spironolactone is recommended.

Association between mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and kidney harm: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Conflicting data have been reported on the association between mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) and acute kidney injury (AKI). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether MRAs affect the risk of AKI. MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were comprehensively searched to extract all relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected that compared MRA versus placebo or no treatment and had study populations consisting of patients with heart or kidney disease. The primary outcome was AKI. The secondary outcome was kidney injury, including AKI and non-AKI. Thirty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis. MRAs were not associated with an increased risk of AKI (risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.46, p = 0.29, I2 = 15%, 18,065 patients, 13 RCTs, moderate certainty). For the secondary outcome, MRAs were associated with an increased risk of kidney injury (RR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24-1.87, p < 0.01, I2 = 48%, 27,492 patients, 33 RCTs, low certainty). In particular, only canrenone (RR 5.39, 95% CI 2.17-13.37, p < 0.01) and spironolactone (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.48-2.14, p < 0.01) were associated with an increased risk of kidney injury. However, eplerenone and finerenone seem not to increase the risk of kidney injury in patients with heart or kidney disease. The selection of MRAs might influence the risk of kidney-associated events. Further studies focusing on individual MRAs may be needed to clarify these differences.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve cardiovascular outcomes in a variety of settings. This study aimed to assess whether cardioprotective effects of MRAs are modified by heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) status and to study their impact on AF events.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases were searched to 24 March 2023 for randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of MRAs as compared with placebo or usual care in reducing cardiovascular outcomes and AF events in patients with or at risk for cardiovascular diseases. Random-effects models and interaction analyses were used to test for effect modification.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of seven trials (20 741 participants, mean age: 65.6 years, 32% women) showed that the efficacy of MRAs, as compared with placebo, in reducing a composite of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization remains consistent across patients with HF [risk ratio = 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-0.98] and without HF (risk ratio = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75-0.93; interaction P = .77). Among patients with HF, MRAs reduced cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization in patients with AF (hazard ratio = 0.95; 95% CI: 0.54-1.66) to a similar extent as in those without AF (hazard ratio = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.63-1.07; interaction P = .65). Pooled data from 20 trials (21 791 participants, mean age: 65.2 years, 31.3% women) showed that MRAs reduce AF events (risk ratio = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67-0.87) in both patients with and without prior AF.

CONCLUSIONS

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists are similarly effective in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with and without HF and most likely retain their efficacy regardless of AF status. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists may also be moderately effective in preventing incident or recurrent AF events.

Aldosterone and cardiovascular diseases

Aldosterone's role in the kidney and its pathophysiologic actions in hypertension are well known. However, its role or that of its receptor [minieralocorticoid receptor (MR)] in other cardiovascular (CV) disease are less well described. To identify their potential roles in six CV conditions (heart failure, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, stroke, atherosclerosis, and thrombosis), we assessed these associations in the following four areas: (i) mechanistic studies in rodents and humans; (ii) pre-clinical studies of MR antagonists; (iii) clinical trials of MR antagonists; and (iv) genetics. The data were acquired from an online search of the National Library of Medicine using the PubMed search engine from January 2011 through June 2021. There were 3702 publications identified with 200 publications meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data strongly supported an association between heart failure and dysregulated aldosterone/MR. This association is not surprising given aldosterone/MR's prominent role in regulating sodium/volume homeostasis. Atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction are also associated with dysregulated aldosterone/MR, but less strongly. For the most part, the data were insufficient to determine whether there was a relationship between atherosclerosis, stroke, or thrombosis and aldosterone/MR dysregulation. This review clearly documented an expanding role for aldosterone/MR's dysregulation in CV diseases beyond hypertension. How expansive it might be is limited by the currently available data. It is anticipated that with an increased focus on aldosterone/MR's potential roles in these diseases, additional clinical and pre-clinical data will clarify these relationships, thereby, opening approaches to use modulators of aldosterone/MR's action to more precisely treat these CV conditions.

Aldosterone Blockade in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

A comprehensive evaluation of the benefits of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients is lacking.

Objective

To summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of MRA in patients admitted for AMI.

Methods

Articles were identified through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid (Medline1946-2021), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from their inception to December 31, 2020.

Results

15 articles with a total of 11,861 patients were included. MRA reduced the risk of all-cause mortality by 16% (relative ratio (RR): 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.76, 0.94); P = 0.002) and the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events by 12% (RR: 0.88, 95% CI (0.83, 0.93), P < 0.00001) in post-AMI patients, and further analysis demonstrated that early administration of MRA within 7 days after AMI resulted in a greater reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.72, 95% CI (0.61, 0.85), P < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses showed that post-STEMI patients without left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) treated with MRA had a 36% reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.64, 95% CI (0.46, 0.89), P = 0.007) and a 22% reduction in cardiovascular adverse events (RR: 0.78, 95% CI (0.67, 0.91), P = 0.002). Meanwhile, post-STEMI patients without LVSD treated with MRA get significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference (MD): 2.69, 95% CI (2.44, 2.93), P < 0.00001), left ventricular end-systolic index (MD: -4.52 ml/m², 95% CI (-8.21, -0.83), P = 0.02), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (MD: -0.11 cm, 95% CI (-0.22, 0.00), P = 0.05). The corresponding RR were 1.72 (95% CI (1.43, 2.07), P < 0.00001) for considered common adverse events (hyperkalemia, gynecomastia, and renal dysfunction).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that MRA treatment reduces all-cause mortality and cardiovascular adverse events in post-AMI patients, which is more significant in patients after STEMI without LVSD. In addition, MRA treatment may exert beneficial effects on the reversal of cardiac remodeling in patients after STEMI without LVSD.

Neutral Effects of Combined Treatment With GLP-1R Agonist Exenatide and MR Antagonist Potassium Canrenoate on Cardiac Function in Porcine and Murine Chronic Heart Failure Models

Background: Ischemia-reperfusion and cardiac remodeling is associated with cardiomyocyte death, excessive fibrosis formation, and functional decline, eventually resulting in heart failure (HF). Glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 agonists are reported to reduce apoptosis and myocardial infarct size after ischemia-reperfusion. Moreover, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been described to reduce reactive fibrosis and improve cardiac function. Here, we investigated whether combined treatment with GLP-1R agonist exenatide and MRA potassium canrenoate could minimize cardiac injury and limit HF progression in animal models of chronic HF.

Methods and Results: Forty female Topigs Norsvin pigs were subjected to 150 min balloon occlusion of the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Prior to reperfusion, pigs were randomly assigned to placebo or combination therapy (either low dose or high dose). Treatment was applied for two consecutive days or for 8 weeks with a continued high dose via a tunneled intravenous catheter. Using 2,3,5-Triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining we observed that combination therapy did not affect the scar size after 8 weeks. In line, left ventricular volume and function assessed by three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography (baseline, 7 days and 8 weeks), and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR, 8 weeks) did not differ between experimental groups. In addition, 36 C57Bl/6JRj mice underwent permanent LAD-occlusion and were treated with either placebo or combination therapy prior to reperfusion, for two consecutive days via intravenous injection, followed by continued treatment via placement of osmotic mini-pumps for 28 days. Global cardiac function, assessed by 3D echocardiography performed at baseline, 7, 14, and 28 days, did not differ between treatment groups. Also, no differences were observed in cardiac hypertrophy, assessed by heart weight/bodyweight and heart weight/tibia length ratio.

Conclusion: In the current study, combined treatment with GLP-1R agonist exenatide and MR antagonist potassium canrenoate did not show beneficial effects on cardiac remodeling nor resulted in functional improvement in a small and large animal chronic HF model.

Plasma Aldosterone Levels Are Not Associated With Cardiovascular Events Among Patients With High-Risk Vascular Disease: Insights From the ACCELERATE Trial

Background

The failure of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor torcetrapib was associated with an off‐target increase in plasma aldosterone. We sought to evaluate the impact of evacetrapib on plasma aldosterone level and determine the association between plasma aldosterone level and major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with stable high‐risk vascular disease enrolled in the ACCELERATE (Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition With Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes) trial.

Methods and Results

We included all patients with a plasma aldosterone level (N=1624) and determined the impact of evacetrapib exposure compared with placebo on plasma aldosterone levels after 12 months of treatment. Using baseline and postexposure aldosterone levels, hazard ratios for major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, hospitalization for unstable angina, and revascularization) with increasing quartile of baseline and percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow‐up were calculated. The average age was 65.2 years, 75.7% were men, 93.7% were hypertensive, 73.3% were diabetic, and 57.6% had a prior myocardial infarction. Baseline plasma aldosterone level (85.2 [43, 150] versus 86.8 [43, 155] pmol/L; P=0.81) and follow‐up percentage change (13.6% [−29, 88] versus 17.9% [−24, 87]; P=0.23) were similar between those who received evacetrapib and placebo. During median follow‐up of 28 months, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 263 patients (16.2%). The hazard ratios for increasing quartile of baseline or percentage change in plasma aldosterone level at follow‐up were not significant for major adverse cardiovascular events. These findings remained consistent when adjusting for significant characteristics.

Conclusions

Exposure to evacetrapib did not result in significant change in plasma aldosterone levels compared with placebo. Among patients with stable high‐risk vascular disease, plasma aldosterone levels were not a predictor for future cardiovascular events.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01687998.

Efficacy of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in postmyocardial infarction patients with or without left ventricular dysfunction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There is heated debate about the benefits of using mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in addition to standard therapy in patients admitted for myocardial infarction (MI) with or without left ventricular dysfunction (LVD).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were scanned by a formal search of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and clinical trials) from their inception to April 2018. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 to identify studies reporting the efficacy of MRAs use in post-MI patients with or without LVD.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs involving 11,365 individuals were eligible for this study. MRAs treatment reduced all-cause mortality by 16%, cardiovascular death by 16%, and death from heart failure (HF) by 22% in post-MI patients. MRAs use reduced all-cause mortality by 13% and cardiovascular death by 15% in post-MI patients with LVD, but there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death in post-MI patients without LVD (relative ratios [RR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-2.69, P = .76, I = 0%; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.33-3.09, P = .99, I = 0%). In 6 RCTs involving post-MI patients, MRAs treatment had a significant effect on improving left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (mean difference 3.33, 95% CI 0.91-5.75, P = .007, I = 94%). Patients treated with MRAs did not show a decrease in recurrent MI or repeat revascularization compared with patients treated without MRAs (RR 0.95, 95% CI [0.80-1.12], P = .54, I = 0%; RR 1.09, 95% CI [0.79-1.50], P = .61, I = 0%). However, MRAs treatment significantly increased the incidence of hyperkalemia compared with patients treated without MRAs (RR 2.05, 95% CI [1.60, 2.61], P < .00001, I = 49%).

CONCLUSION

MRAs treatment reduced all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and death from HF in post-MI patients. MRAs treatment also demonstrated a significant improvement in LVEF. MRAs reduced cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality in patients with LVD. Eplerenone significantly reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death in post-MI patients. However, MRAs failed to show any cardiovascular benefit in post-MI patients without LVD.

Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy and Mortality in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Without Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Treatment with aldosterone antagonists is recommended and has been shown to have beneficial effects in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%. However, the role of aldosterone antagonists in patients with ejection fraction greater than 40% or without congestive heart failure is not well known.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using standard techniques to determine the role of therapy with aldosterone antagonists in this patient population.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases were searched and a manual search for relevant references from the selected articles and published reviews was performed from database inception through June 2017.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials that evaluated treatment with aldosterone antagonists in patients with STEMI without clinical heart failure or LVEF greater than 40% were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used to conduct and report the meta-analysis, which used a random-effects model. Two investigators independently performed the database search and agreed on the final study selection. A manual search was performed for relevant references from the selected articles and published reviews.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The outcomes analyzed were mortality, new congestive heart failure, recurrent myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, and changes in LVEF, serum potassium level, and creatinine level at follow-up.

RESULTS

In all, 10 randomized clinical trials with a total of 4147 unique patients were included in the meta-analysis. In patients who presented with STEMI without heart failure, treatment with aldosterone antagonists compared with control was associated with lower risk of mortality (2.4% vs 3.9%; odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91; P = .01) and similar risks of myocardial infarction (1.6% vs 1.5%; OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.57-1.86; P = .91), new congestive heart failure (4.3% vs 5.4%; OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.56-1.20; P = .31), and ventricular arrhythmia (4.1% vs 5.1%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.45-1.31; P = .33). Similarly, treatment with aldosterone antagonists compared with control was associated with a small yet significant increase in LVEF (mean difference, 1.58%; 95% CI, 0.18%-2.97%; P = .03), a small increase in serum potassium level (mean difference, 0.07 mEq/L; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13 mEq/L; P = .02), and no change in serum creatinine level (standardized mean difference, 1.4; 95% CI, -0.43 to 3.24; P = .13).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Treatment with aldosterone antagonists is associated with a mortality benefit in patients with STEMI with LVEF greater than 40% or without heart failure.

Individual participant data analysis of two trials on aldosterone blockade in myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Two recent randomised trials studied the benefit of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) irrespective or in absence of heart failure. The studies were both undersized to assess hard clinical endpoints. A pooled analysis was preplanned by the steering committees.

METHODS

We conducted a prespecified meta-analysis of patient-level data of patients with STEMI recruited in two multicentre superiority trials, randomised within 72 hours after symptom onset. Patients were allocated (1:1) to two MRA regimens: (1) an intravenous bolus of potassium canrenoate (200 mg) followed by oral spironolactone (25 mg once daily) versus standard therapy or (2) oral eplerenone (25-50 mg) versus placebo. The primary and key secondary outcomes, all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death or resuscitated sudden death, respectively, were assessed in the intention-to-treat population using a Cox model stratified on the study identifier.

RESULTS

Patients were randomly assigned to receive (n=1118) or not the MRA regimen (n=1123). After a median follow-up time of 188 days, the primary and secondary outcomes occurred in 5 (0.4%) and 17 (1.5%) patients (adjusted HR (adjHR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86, p=0.03) and 6 (0.5%) and 22 (2%) patients (adjHR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65, p=0.004) in the MRA and control groups, respectively. There were also trends towards lower rates of cardiovascular death (p=0.06) and ventricular fibrillation (p=0.08) in the MRA group.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that compared with standard therapy, MRA regimens are associated with a reduction of death and death or resuscitated sudden death in STEMI.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in patients with acute myocardial infarction - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Although mineralocorticoid antagonists (MRAs) reduce mortality in patients with heart failure complicating myocardial infarction (MI), it is unclear if they could be beneficial to all patients with MI. To evaluate the utility of MRAs in MI patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from 1965 to June 2016. Conference abstracts were searched from 2000 to June 2016. Randomized trials evaluating the effect of MRA after MIs were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Data were combined using fixed-/random-effects models.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized clinical trials (N = 11,258) were included; 1 trial (N = 6,642) included patients with apparent heart failure (Killip class III-IV). Administration of MRA versus placebo or standard therapy (no-MRA) after MI reduced overall and cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.93, P = .002, and OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71-0.93, P = .003, respectively; I² for both = 0%). In the subgroup of trials with patients with heart failure, the mortality was 14.4% in MRA group versus 16.7% in no-MRA group (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.96), and among those without heart failure, it was 2.5% with MRA versus 3.5% without MRA (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.51-1.02, P for interaction = .43). Patients receiving MRA had fewer new or worsening heart failure events (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84, P < .0001; I² = 14%). Nevertheless, MRA therapy increased risk for hyperkalemia (≥5.5 mmol/L) (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.36-4.65, P = .003; I² = 63%).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of MRA may reduce mortality after acute MI. However, this is largely based on post-MI patients with heart failure. Further data are needed in MI patients without heart failure.

Early Aldosterone Blockade in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The ALBATROSS Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) improve outcome in the setting of post-myocardial infarction (MI) heart failure (HF).

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to assess the benefit of an early MRA regimen in acute MI irrespective of the presence of HF or left ventricular (LV) dysfunction.

METHODS

We randomized 1,603 patients to receive an MRA regimen with a single intravenous bolus of potassium canrenoate (200 mg) followed by oral spironolactone (25 mg once daily) for 6 months in addition to standard therapy or standard therapy alone. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, significant ventricular arrhythmia, indication for implantable defibrillator, or new or worsening HF at 6-month follow-up. Key secondary/safety outcomes included death and other individual components of the primary outcome and rates of hyperkalemia at 6 months.

RESULTS

The primary outcome occurred in 95 (11.8%) and 98 (12.2%) patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 1.28). Death occurred in 11 (1.4%) and 17 (2.1%) patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.38). In a non-pre-specified exploratory analysis, the odds of death were reduced in the treatment group (3 [0.5%] vs. 15 [2.4%]; HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.70) in the subgroup of ST-segment elevation MI (n = 1,229), but not in non-ST-segment elevation MI (p for interaction = 0.01). Hyperkalemia >5.5 mmol/l(-1) occurred in 3% and 0.2% of patients in the treatment and standard therapy groups, respectively (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The study failed to show the benefit of early MRA use in addition to standard therapy in patients admitted for MI. (Aldosterone Lethal effects Blockade in Acute myocardial infarction Treated with or without Reperfusion to improve Outcome and Survival at Six months follow-up; NCT01059136).

Impact of Aldosterone Antagonists on Sudden Cardiac Death Prevention in Heart Failure and Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Objectives

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a severe burden of modern medicine. Aldosterone antagonist is publicized as effective in reducing mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) or post myocardial infarction (MI). Our study aimed to assess the efficacy of AAs on mortality including SCD, hospitalization admission and several common adverse effects.

Methods

We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library and clinicaltrial.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assigning AAs in patients with HF or post MI through May 2015. The comparator included standard medication or placebo, or both. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Event rates were compared using a random effects model. Prospective RCTs of AAs with durations of at least 8 weeks were selected if they included at least one of the following outcomes: SCD, all-cause/cardiovascular mortality, all-cause/cardiovascular hospitalization and common side effects (hyperkalemia, renal function degradation and gynecomastia).

Results

Data from 19,333 patients enrolled in 25 trials were included. In patients with HF, this treatment significantly reduced the risk of SCD by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.98; p = 0.03); all-cause mortality by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74–0.88, p<0.00001) and cardiovascular death by 21% (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70–0.89, p<0.00001). In patients with post-MI, the matching reduced risks were 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66–0.98; p = 0.03), 15% (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76–0.95, p = 0.003) and 17% (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74–0.94, p = 0.003), respectively. Concerning both subgroups, the relative risks respectively decreased by 19% (RR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71–0.92; p = 0.002) for SCD, 18% (RR 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77–0.88, p < 0.0001) for all-cause mortality and 20% (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74–0.87, p < 0.0001) for cardiovascular mortality in patients treated with AAs. As well, hospitalizations were significantly reduced, while common adverse effects were significantly increased.

Conclusion

Aldosterone antagonists appear to be effective in reducing SCD and other mortality events, compared with placebo or standard medication in patients with HF and/or after a MI.

Effects of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in patients with preserved ejection fraction: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) have been shown to be effective in patients with heart failure or myocardial infarction complicated by a reduced ejection fraction. However, the role of MRAs in patients with preserved ejection fraction (PEF) remains to be clarified. We aimed to summarize the evidence for the efficacy of MRAs in patients with either heart failure with PEF (HF-PEF) or myocardial infarction with PEF (MI-PEF).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and clinical trials databases for randomized controlled trials, through June 2014, assessing MRA treatment in HF-PEF or MI-PEF patients. Fourteen randomized controlled trials (MI-PEF, 5; HF-PEF, 9; n = 6,428 patients) were included.

RESULTS

MRA treatment reduced the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (relative risk, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 0.98), improved quality of life (weighted mean difference [WMD], -5.16; 95% CI, -8.03 to -2.30), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (standardized mean difference, -0.21; 95% CI, 0.32 to -0.11), and serum amino-terminal peptide of procollagen type-III level (WMD, -1.50, 95% CI, -1.72 to -1.29) in patients with PEF. In addition, MRAs reduced E/e'(an echocardiographic estimate of filling pressure for assessment of diastolic function; WMD, -1.82; 95% CI, -2.23 to -1.42) in HF-PEF patients and E/A ratio (the ratio of early to late diastolic transmitral flow; WMD, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.14) in MI-PEF patients. However, all-cause mortality was not improved by MRAs in either HF-PEF (P = 0.90) or MI-PEF (P = 0.27) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

MRA treatment in PEF patients led to reduced hospitalization for heart failure, quantifiable improvements in quality of life and diastolic function, and reversal of cardiac remodeling, but did not provide any all-cause mortality benefit.

Impact of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on changes in cardiac structure and function of left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive evaluation of the benefits of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on cardiac remodeling is lacking. We aimed to evaluate the impact of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists on changes in cardiac structure and function of left ventricular dysfunction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Articles were identified by online searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases before June 2012, by hand searches of reviews and relevant journals, and by contact with the authors. Qualified articles were restricted to randomized controlled trials. There were, respectively, 12, 4, and 3 qualified trials that randomized 572, 647, and 407 patients to spironolactone, canrenoate, and eplerenone, and 531, 655, and 395 patients to placebo or active treatment, respectively. Overall, under mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment there was improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (weighted mean difference, 2.97; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.26-3.67; P<0.0005), left ventricular end-systolic and end-diastolic volume index (weighted mean difference, -5.64; 95% CI, -7.94 to -3.34; P<0.0005 and weighted mean difference, -7.46; 95% CI, -11.63 to -3.3; P<0.0005), serum amino-terminal peptide of procollagen type-III (weighted mean difference, -1.12; 95% CI, -1.49 to -0.74; P<0.0005), B-type natriuretic peptide (weighted mean difference, -67.06; 95% CI, -91.24 to -42.88; P<0.0005), peak velocities of early mitral inflow (E; weighted mean difference, -9.57; 95% CI, -12.98 to -6.17; P<0.0005), and E wave deceleration time (weighted mean difference, 7.08; 95% CI, 4.07-10.09; P<0.0005). There was low probability of heterogeneity and publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist treatment may exert beneficial effects on the reversal of cardiac remodeling and improvement of left ventricular function.

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: integrating evidence into clinical practice

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve survival and reduce morbidity in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), and mild-to-severe symptoms, and in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. These clinical benefits are observed in addition to those of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. The morbidity and mortality benefits of MRAs may be mediated by several proposed actions, including antifibrotic mechanisms that slow heart failure progression, prevent or reverse cardiac remodelling, or reduce arrhythmogenesis. Both eplerenone and spironolactone have demonstrated survival benefits in individual clinical trials. Pharmacologic differences exist between the drugs, which may be relevant for therapeutic decision making in individual patients. Although serious hyperkalaemia events were reported in the major MRA clinical trials, these risks can be mitigated through appropriate patient selection, dose selection, patient education, monitoring, and follow-up. When used appropriately, MRAs significantly improve outcomes across the spectrum of patients with HF-REF.

Eplerenone is not superior to older and less expensive aldosterone antagonists

INTRODUCTION

Eplerenone is publicized to be extremely effective in reducing mortality from heart failure, with a reasonable side-effect profile. However, it is much more expensive compared with older aldosterone antagonists. We reviewed available evidence to assess whether increased expense was justified with outcomes data.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The authors searched the PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials from 1966 through July 2011. Interventions included aldosterone antagonists (Aldactone [Pfizer, NY, NY], canrenone, eplerenone) in systolic heart failure. The comparator included standard medical therapy or placebo, or both. Outcomes assessed were mortality in the intervention versus the comparator groups, and rates of adverse events at the end of at least 8 weeks of follow-up. Event rates were compared using a forest plot of relative risk (RR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) using a random-effects model (Mantel-Haenszel) between the aldosterone antagonists and controls. We included 13 studies for aldosterone antagonists other than eplerenone, and 3 studies for eplerenone. There was significant reduction of mortality with all aldosterone antagonists, but eplerenone (15% mortality relative reduction; RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.93; P=.0007) was outperformed by other aldosterone antagonists, namely, spironolactone and canrenone (26% mortality relative reduction; RR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83; P <.0001). Reduction in cardiovascular mortality with eplerenone was 17% (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.92; P=.0005), while that with other aldosterone antagonists was 25% (RR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84, P <.0001), without contributing significantly to an improved side-effect profile.

CONCLUSION

Eplerenone does not appear to be more effective in reducing clinical events compared with older, less expensive aldosterone antagonists.

Cost-effectiveness of aldosterone antagonists for the treatment of post-myocardial infarction heart failure

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of eplerenone versus spironolactone as an adjunctive therapy to standard care in patients with heart failure (HF) following a myocardial infarction (post-MI) from the perspective of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, and a Bayesian meta-regression approach was used to establish the relative effectiveness of eplerenone and spironolactone by using evidence from randomized controlled trials. A decision analytic model was developed to assess the costs and consequences associated with the primary outcome of the trials over a lifetime time horizon.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of eplerenone compared with that of standard care alone was £ 4457 and £ 7893 for each additional quality-adjusted life-year when 2-year and lifetime treatment duration was assumed, respectively. In both scenarios, spironolactone did not appear cost-effective compared with eplerenone. The results were sensitive to the higher relative effectiveness estimated for eplerenone compared with spironolactone from the meta-regression. When a class effect was assumed for the effect on mortality and hospitalizations, spironolactone emerged as the most cost-effective treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Eplerenone appears more cost-effective than spironolactone for the treatment of post-MI HF. These findings, however, remain subject to important uncertainties regarding the effects of treatment on major clinical events. An adequately powered, well-conducted randomized controlled trial that directly compares spironolactone and eplerenone may be required to provide more robust evidence on the optimal management of post-MI HF. Despite these uncertainties, the use of an aldosterone antagonist was consistently demonstrated to be a highly cost-effective strategy for the management of post-MI HF in the National Health Service.

Short-term effects of hypertonic saline solution in acute heart failure and long-term effects of a moderate sodium restriction in patients with compensated heart failure with New York Heart Association class III (Class C) (SMAC-HF Study)

INTRODUCTION

Hypertonic saline solution (HSS) and a moderate Na restriction plus high furosemide dose showed beneficial effects in compensated heart failure (HF), in short and long terms. The study was aimed to verify the effects of this combination on hospitalization time, readmissions and mortality in patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III.

METHOD

Chronic ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy uncompensated patients with HF in NYHA III functional class with ejection fraction <40%, serum creatinine <2.5 mg/dL, blood urea nitrogen <60 mg/dL and reduced urinary volume were single-blind randomized in 2 groups: the first group received a 30-minute intravenous infusion of furosemide (250 mg) plus HSS (150 mL) twice daily and a moderate Na restriction (120 mmol); the second group received furosemide intravenous bolus (250 mg) twice a day, without HSS and a low Na diet (80 mmol); both groups received a fluid intake of 1000 mL/d. After discharge, the HSS group continued with 120 mmol Na/d; the second group continued with 80 mmol Na/d.

RESULTS

A total of 1771 patients (881 HSS group and 890 without HSS group) met inclusion criteria: the first group (881 patients), compared with the second (890 patients), showed an increase in diuresis and serum Na levels, a reduction in hospitalization time (3.5 + 1 versus 5.5 + 1 days, P < 0.0001) and, during follow-up (57 + 15 months), a lower rate in readmissions (18.5% versus 34.2%, P < 0.0001) and mortality (12.9% versus 23.8%, P < 0.0001); the second group also showed a significant increase in blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that in-hospital HSS administration, combined with moderate Na restriction, reduces hospitalization time and that a moderate sodium diet restriction determines long-term benefit in patients with NYHA class III HF.

Aldosterone blockade and left ventricular dysfunction: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials

CONTEXT

Aldosterone blockade has been used to treat acute myocardial infarction (MI) and chronic heart failure.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to summarize the evidence on the efficacy of spironolactone (SP), eplerenone (EP), or canrenoate (CAN) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

DATA SOURCES

A search of multiple electronic databases until June 2008 was supplemented by hand searches of reference lists of included studies and review articles, meeting abstracts, FDA reports, and contact with study authors and drug manufacturers.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included patients with left ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction, treatment with SP, EP, or CAN vs. control, and reported clinical outcomes. Nineteen randomized controlled trials (four in acute MI and 15 in heart failure, n = 10 807 patients) were included -- 14 of SP, three of EP, and three of CAN. Analysis was performed using relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and a random effects model with statistical heterogeneity assessed by I(2).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Aldosterone blockade reduced all-cause mortality by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.87). All-cause mortality was reduced in both heart failure (RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.84) and post-MI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.95) patients. Only nine trials reported hospitalizations, and the RR reduction was 23% (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87), although 98% of the outcomes came from two trials. Ejection fraction (EF) improved in the seven heart failure trials, which assessed this outcome (weighted mean difference 3.1%, 95% CI 1.6-4.5).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality with the use of aldosterone blockade in a clinically heterogeneous group of clinical trial participants with heart failure and post-MI. In addition, we found a 3.1% improvement in EF. Further study in those with less severe symptoms or preserved systolic function is warranted.

Aldosterone receptor antagonism and heart failure: insights from an outpatient clinic

OBJECTIVE

In randomized clinical trials, aldosterone antagonists have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in heart failure (HF). The aim of the present study was to examine the risk-benefit profile of aldosterone antagonists in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis, extending over a 1-year period, of the clinical, instrumental and laboratory data of 264 HF outpatients was performed. All patients were on a beta-blocker and an ACE-inhibitor (or angiotensin-II receptor-blocker) and 151 were taking an aldosterone antagonist.

RESULTS

At baseline, subjects treated with aldosterone antagonists had a higher NYHA class, a larger left-ventricular end-diastolic volume, a worse ejection fraction and a higher systolic pulmonary arterial pressure (sPAP). During follow-up, a greater reduction in sPAP and a tendency towards improved systolic and diastolic function were observed in subjects treated with aldosterone antagonists. Moreover, clinical and laboratory parameters did not deteriorate in patients taking aldosterone antagonists. Mortality rates were similar in the two groups (8.6% vs. 8.8%, P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of aldosterone antagonists in HF is associated with an improvement in cardiac function and is well tolerated. In the present study, patients administered these agents had a comparable clinical outcome to that of the control group, despite important differences in baseline risk.

Novel strategies: challenge loop diuretics and sodium management in heart failure--Part I

This is the first of a 2-part series. This article reviews the relationships among diuretics, neurohormonal activation, renal function, fluid and Na management, the cardiorenal syndrome, and heart failure. Part II will describe novel therapies based on these relationships, focusing particularly on vasopressin antagonists and treatment using hypertonic saline solution with high-dose loop diuretics. Heart failure (HF) is a complex hemodynamic disorder characterized by chronic and progressive pump failure and fluid accumulation. Diuretics are a vital component of symptomatic management, and enhancing diuretic response in the setting of diuretic resistance is therefore pivotal. In HF patients treated with diuretics, compensatory pathophysiologic mechanisms to maintain vascular resistance, such as nonosmotic stimulation of vasopressin secretion and activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and sympathetic nervous system, promote renal Na and water reabsorption. Thus, there remains a need to develop novel therapies for HF patients who are refractory to conventional medical treatment. The conflicting results of diuretic treatments in HF and the importance of Na management in the context of the cardiorenal syndrome and neurohormonal activation have suggested novel and counterintuitive strategies, focusing primarily on the use of vasopressin antagonists and hypertonic saline solution with high doses of loop diuretics and neurohormonal interference. The authors review the current evidence for these therapies and suggest hypothetical bases for their efficacy.