ACE inhibitors after myocardial infarction: patient selection or treatment for all?

ACE Inhibition versus Angiotensin-II Antagonism in Heart Failure

Heart failure is becoming increasingly frequent. Once diagnosed, 5-year survival is less than 50% and a substantial percentage of patients (25% to 50%) die suddenly. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors are the only agents shown to reduce mortality in heart failure. All angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors appear to have similar clinical benefits in heart failure. Therapy should be started with a low dose and titrated up to the target dosage in major trials. Although angiotensin-I receptor antagonists provide more complete inhibition of angiotensin-II effects, they have not been found to be superior to long-acting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in reducing morbidity and mortality in heart failure. Therefore, in current clinical practice, angiotensin-II antagonists should be used as an alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors when the latter are not tolerated. The combined use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-II antagonists is not currently recommended in the treatment of heart failure.

[The clinical management guidelines of the Sociedad Española de Cardiología in acute myocardial infarct]

In the recent years, new possibilities have emerged in the diagnosis and management of acute myocardial infarction with ST segment elevation and its complications. Moreover, a deep transformation has taken place in the health care system organization, particularly in aspects related to care of patients presenting non-traumatic chest pain, both in pre-hospital and hospital areas. All these issues warrant a consensus document in Spain dealing with the role that these important changes should play in the whole management of myocardial infarction patients. This document revises and updates all the main clinical issues of acute myocardial infarction patients from the moment they contact with the health care system outside the hospital until they return home, after staying at the coronary care unit and the general hospitalization ward. All those aspects are considered not only in the uncomplicated myocardial infarction but also in the complicated one. This review also includes a set of recommendations on structural and organisational aspects, mainly referred to the prehospital and emergency levels.

Treatment with verapamil and trandolapril in patients with congestive heart failure and angina pectoris or myocardial infarction. The DAVIT Study Group. Danish Verapamil Infarction Trial

In a double-blind, randomized trial in a consecutive group of postinfarct patients in treatment with diuretic agents for congestive heart failure, the 3 month rate of cardiac events (i.e., death, repeat infarction, unstable angina pectoris, or repeat admission because of heart failure) was 14% in patients treated with verapamil and trandolapril and 35% in patients treated with trandolapril (p = 0.01). In another study of patients with angina pectoris and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 40%, trandolapril plus verapamil improved exercise duration and left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings indicate that combined treatment with verapamil and trandolapril may be beneficial in patients with congestive heart failure.

Treatment with verapamil and trandolapril in patients with congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction. The Danish Verapamil Infarction Trial (DAVIT Study Group)

EFFECTS OF VERAPAMIL AND TRANDOLAPRIL: Progression of heart failure, sudden death and death from re-infarction are the major cause of the increased mortality in postinfarct patients with congestive heart failure. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors such as trandolapril can prevent the progression of heart failure and thus improve survival. The calcium antagonist verapamil has been shown to prevent sudden death and re-infarction in postinfarct patients without congestive heart failure.

HYPOTHESIS

The Danish Verapamil Infarction Trial (DAVIT) study group hypothesized the combined treatment with trandolapril and verapamil might prevent cardiac events in postinfarct patients with coronary heart disease. The first double-blind randomized trial included 100 patients and supported this hypothesis, as the cardiac event rate was significantly lower after 3 months in patients treated with the combination than in those treated with trandolapril alone (14 versus 35%, respectively; P = 0.01, hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.85).

Formulary management of ACE inhibitors

An increasing number of ACE inhibitors have become available in recent years. Because these agents are all similar, careful scrutiny is required in order to determine specific advantages of particular agents when making formulary decisions. Differences between agents with regard to structure and tissue specificity have been identified, but the clinical relevance of these differences is not clear. ACE inhibitors vary greatly with regard to bioconversion, distribution and elimination. Disease states such as congestive heart failure (CHF) and hepatic or renal insufficiency may affect the disposition of specific ACE inhibitors. These agents may differ substantially in duration of action, and ACE inhibitors that are given once daily may optimise patient compliance and decrease costs. ACE inhibitors have been extensively studied in patients with hypertension, CHF or nephropathy, and following myocardial infarction (MI). Differences in efficacy between agents are often a result of variations in study design, or because nonequipotent dosages were compared. It is likely that the benefits of ACE inhibitors are class effects, and it is probably reasonable to use an agent even if large scale clinical trials have not been performed with that particular drug. Few differences have been found between ACE inhibitors with regard to adverse effects or drug interactions, and these factors are of minor importance when making formulary decisions. Cost and availability may vary among agents, and will depend on geographical location and institution-specific purchasing contracts. ACE inhibitors have shown positive effects on quality of life when compared with agents of other classes. Quality-of-life studies that have directly compared ACE inhibitors have produced conflicting results. In the setting of hypertension, cost-effectiveness evaluations typically find that the newer, longer-acting ACE inhibitors provide the greatest financial benefit. Differences in cost effectiveness in the post-MI patient population are typically the result of variations in protocol design, including duration of treatment and nondrug costs. ACE inhibitors are fairly homogeneous and selection between agents can be difficult. Clinical efficacy, time course of action, and cost are the primary concerns in selecting agents for inclusion on a formulary.

Reproducibility of left ventricular size, shape and mass with echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging and radionuclide angiography in patients with anterior wall infarction. A plea for core laboratories

After myocardial infarction, left ventricular volume and ejection fraction can be assessed by echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging and radionuclide angiography to guide therapy and determine prognosis. Whether a measured parameter gives the same results irrespective of the method used and the observer who performs the analysis is only partly known. Intra-observer and inter-observer variability were determined for echo and magnetic resonance imaging. Left ventricular ejection fraction measured by these techniques was related to radionuclide angiograms performed in the same period. Intra-observer variability for both echo and MRI was low and in most instances below 5%. Inter-observer variability for the echo and MRI measurements were substantially higher than intra-observer variability. Comparison of the three imaging modalities revealed systematic differences. Therefore, in clinical studies, left ventricular volume and function parameters have to be measured with the same technique and by the same observer in qualified core laboratories.

Verapamil and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

Verapamil is effective as antianginal medication but contraindicated in patients with congestive heart failure. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors improve survival in patients with congestive heart failure but have limited effect on patients with angina pectoris. No studies have been published on the combined treatment with verapamil and ACE inhibitors in patients with stable angina pectoris and left ventricular dysfunction. We performed an open study in 14 patients with angina pectoris and ejection fraction < 40%. The patients received verapamil 180 mg and trandolapril 2 mg twice daily for 3 months. We found a significant increase in ejection fraction from 28 +/- 6 to 35 +/- 11 (p < 0.03), wall motion index from 1.0 +/- 0.3 to 1.2 +/- 0.3 (p < 0.03), exercise duration from 6.9 +/- 2.5 to 7.7 +/- 2.9 minutes (p < 0.01), and ratio of exercise to rest rate-pressure product from 2.2 +/- 0.4 to 2.5 +/- 0.6 (p < 0.02). Use of nitroglycerin and number of angina pectoris attacks were both significantly reduced after 3 months of treatment. These findings support the hypothesis that the combination of verapamil and trandolapril is useful in patients with attenuated left ventricular function and angina pectoris.