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

Renin Angiotensin Blockers and Cardiac Protection: From Basis to Clinical Trials

Despite a similar beneficial effect on blood pressure lowering observed with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) blocker (ARBs), several clinical trials and meta-analyses have reported higher cardiovascular mortality and lower protection against myocardial infarction with ARBs when compared with ACEIs. The European guidelines for the management of coronary syndromes and European guidelines on diabetes recommend using ARBs in patients who are intolerant to ACEIs. We reviewed the main pharmacological differences between ACEIs and ARBs, which could provide insights into the differences in the cardiac protection offered by these 2 drug classes. The effect of ACEIs on the tissue and plasma levels of bradykinin and on nitric oxide production and bioavailability is specific to the mechanism of action of ACEIs; it could account for the different effects of ACEIs and ARBs on endothelial function, atherogenesis, and fibrinolysis. Moreover, chronic blockade of AT1 receptors by ARBs induces a significant and permanent increase in plasma angiotensin II and an overstimulation of its still available receptors. In animal models, AT4 receptors have vasoconstrictive, proliferative, and inflammatory effects. Moreover, in models with kidney damage, atherosclerosis, and/or senescence, activation of AT2 receptors could have deleterious fibrotic, vasoconstrictive, and hypertrophic effects and seems prudent and reasonable to reserve the use of ARBs for patients who have presented intolerance to ACE inhibitors.

The use of angiotensin II receptor blocker is associated with greater recovery of cardiac function than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor in dilated cardiomyopathy

AIMS

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been shown to be associated with recovery of cardiac function in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). The aim of this study was to assess comparative effectiveness of ACEis vs. ARBs on recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) among patients with DCM.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed the clinical personal records of DCM, a national database of the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, from 2003 to 2014. Patients with LVEF < 40% and on either ACEis or ARBs were included. Eligible patients were divided into two groups according to the use of ACEis or ARBs. A one-to-one propensity case-matched analysis was used. The primary outcome was defined as LVEF ≥ 40% at 3 years of follow-up. Out of 4618 eligible patients, 2238 patients received ACEis and 2380 patients received ARBs. Propensity score matching yielded 1341 pairs. Mean age was 56.0 years, 2041 (76.1%) were male, median duration of heart failure was 1 year, and mean LVEF was 27.6%. The primary outcome was observed more frequently in ARB group than in ACEi group (59.8% vs. 54.1%; odds ratio 1.26; 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.47; P = 0.003). The per-protocol analysis showed similar results (62.0% vs. 54.0%; odds ratio 1.39; 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.66; P < 0.001). The change in LVEF from baseline to 3 years of follow-up was greater in ARB group than in ACEi group (15.8 ± 0.4% vs. 14.0 ± 0.4%, P = 0.003). The subgroup analysis showed that this effect was observed independently of systolic blood pressure, heart rate, LVEF, chronic kidney disease, and concomitant use of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ARBs was associated with LVEF recovery more frequently than ACEis among patients with DCM and reduced LVEF.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers and outcomes in patients with acute decompensated heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) are cornerstones in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection (HFrEF). However, there are limited data on their risk-benefit profile in patients with acute heart failure requiring hospitalizations.

METHODS

We did a meta-analysis pooling data from all studies examining the use of ACEi/ARB in patients hospitalized for heart failure compared to patients without ACEi/ARB use. We calculated pooled hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Continued use of ACEi/ARBs in hospitalized patients with HFrEF was associated with lower 1-year mortality risk (pooled HR 0.68 [0.60-0.77] p < 0.001) and with lower 1-6-year mortality risk in those with heart failure preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (pooled HR 0.86 [0.78-0.94] p = 0.002). There were significant reductions in 1-year HF readmissions among hospitalized HFrEF patients (pooled HR 0.83 [0.73-0.95] p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Maintaining or initiating patients with HFrEF hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) on ACEi/ARB is associated with a reduce risk of mortality and 1-year admissions, but the effect size is lower among those with HFpEF with more heterogeneous outcomes.

The benefit of angiotensin AT1 receptor blockers for early treatment of hypertensive patients

ESC guidelines for management of arterial hypertension allow one to choose among five classes of antihypertensive drugs indiscriminately. They are based on the principle that in the management of hypertensive patients, it is fundamental to reduce blood pressure (BP), independently of the utilized drug. However, it has been demonstrated that the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays a relevant role in the hypertensive-derived development and progression of organ damage. Thus, antihypertensive drugs interfering with the RAS should be preferred in preventing and reducing target organ damage. The availability of two classes of drugs, ACE-inhibitors and angiotensin AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs), both interfering with the RAS, makes the choice between them difficult. Both pharmacological strategies offer an effective BP control, and a substantial improvement of prognosis in different associated pathologies. Regarding cardiovascular prevention, ACE-inhibitors have an extensive scientific literature regarding utility in high-risk patients. Nevertheless, there is evidence to support the concept that in the early phases of organ tissue damage, the RAS is activated, but the ACE pathway producing angiotensin II is not always employed. Accordingly, ACE-inhibitors appear to be less effective, whereas ARBs have a greater beneficial action in the initial stages of atherosclerotic disease. Moreover, patients undergoing ARBs therapy show a substantially lower risk of therapy discontinuation when compared to those treated with ACE-inhibitors, because of a better tolerability. In conclusion, ACE-inhibitors should be used in patients who have already developed organ damage, but tolerate this drug well, while ARBs should be the first choice in naïve hypertensive patients without organ damage or at the initial stages of disease.

Prognostic Value of Chronic Kidney Disease Measures in Patients With Cardiac Disease

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is considered a global public health issue. The latest international clinical guideline emphasizes characterization of CKD with both glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and albuminuria. CKD is closely related to cardiac disease and increases the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Indeed, numerous studies have investigated the association of CKD measures with prognosis among patients with CVD, but most of them have focused on kidney function, with limited data on albuminuria. Consequently, although there are several risk prediction tools for patients with CVD incorporating kidney function, to our knowledge, none of them include albuminuria. Moreover, the selection of the kidney function measure (e.g., serum creatinine, creatinine-based estimated GFR, or blood urea nitrogen) in these tools is heterogeneous. In this review, we will summarize these aspects, as well as the burden of CKD in patients with CVD, in the current literature. We will also discuss potential mechanisms linking CKD to secondary events and consider future research directions. Given their clinical and public health importance, for CVD we will focus on 2 representative cardiac diseases: myocardial infarction and heart failure.