Comparison of clinical outcomes between angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors and ARBs in patients with acute myocardial infarction with dyslipidemia after a successful stent implantation

Management of Hypertension in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Structured Review

This article reviews available evidence regarding hypertension management in the Asia-Pacific region, focussing on five research questions that deal with specific aspects: blood pressure (BP) control, guideline recommendations, role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors in clinical practice, pharmacological management and real-world adherence to guideline recommendations. A PubMed search identified 2537 articles, of which 94 were considered relevant. Compared with Europeans, Asians have higher systolic/diastolic/mean arterial BP, with a stronger association between BP and stroke. Calcium channel blockers are the most-commonly prescribed monotherapy in Asia, with significant variability between countries in the rates of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis)/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and single-pill combination (SPC) use. In clinical practice, ARBs are used more commonly than ACEis, despite the absence of recommendation from guidelines and clinical evidence supporting the use of one class of drug over the other. Ideally, antihypertensive treatment should be tailored to the individual patient, but currently there are limited data on the characteristics of hypertension in Asia-Pacific individuals. Large outcome studies assessing RAAS inhibitor efficacy and safety in multi-national Asian populations are lacking. Among treated patients, BP control rates were ~ 35 to 40%; BP control in Asia-Pacific is suboptimal, and disproportionately so compared with Western nations. Strategies to improve the management of hypertension include wider access/availability of affordable treatments, particularly SPCs (which improve adherence), effective public health screening programs targeting patients to drive health-seeking behaviours, an increase in physician/patient awareness and early implementation of lifestyle changes. A unified Asia-Pacific guideline on hypertension management with pragmatic recommendations, particularly in resource-limited settings, is essential.

The impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers on 3-year clinical outcomes in elderly (≥ 65) patients with acute myocardial infarction without hypertension

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the impact of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARB) on 3-year clinical outcomes in elderly (≥ 65) acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients without a history of hypertension who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES).

METHODS

A total of 13,104 AMI patients who were registered in the Korea AMI registry (KAMIR)-National Institutes of Health (NIH) were included in the study. The primary endpoint was 3-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), which was defined as the composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization. To adjust baseline potential confounders, an inverse probability weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into two groups: the ACEI group, n = 872 patients and the ARB group, n = 508 patients. After IPTW matching, baseline characteristics were balanced. During the 3-year clinical follow-up, the incidence of MACE was not different between the two groups. However, incidence of stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.375; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.166-0.846; p = 0.018) and re-hospitalization due to heart failure (HF) (HR, 0.528; 95% CI, 0.289-0.965; p = 0.038) in the ACEI group were significantly lower than in the ARB group.

CONCLUSION

In elderly AMI patients who underwent PCI with DES without a history of hypertension, the use of ACEI was significantly associated with reduced incidences of stroke, and re-hospitalization due to HF than those with the use of ARB.

The Efficacy and Safety of Bisoprolol in the Treatment of Myocardial Infarction with Cardiac Insufficiency

Background

Bisoprolol is commonly used to treat moderate or severe chronic stable heart failure, coronary heart disease, and hypertension. This study is aimed at analyzing the efficacy of bisoprolol in the treatment of myocardial infarction with cardiac insufficiency and its effect on cardiac function, Hcy, and CRP through meta-analysis.

Methods

A total of 120 patients with myocardial infarction and cardiac insufficiency from February 2020 to February 2021 were selected and randomly divided into two groups (control and the observation, n = 60) according to the random number table method. The control group was given conventional treatment. The observation group was given bisoprolol on the basis of control group. The clinical efficacy, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, cardiac function indexes, homocysteine (Hcy), and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were compared between the two groups before and after treatment through data analysis. Adverse reactions were observed during treatment.

Results

Compared with the control group, the total effective rate of the observation group was significantly increased (p < 0.05). After treatment, the levels of heart rate, left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and serum Hcy and CRP levels in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (p < 0.05). Meanwhile, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) level in the observation group after treatment was higher than that of the control group (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Bisoprolol combined with conventional treatment can reduce serum Hcy and CRP levels in patients with myocardial infarction and cardiac insufficiency and improve cardiac function. Moreover, there are no obvious adverse reactions during the treatment.

Impact of renin angiotensin system inhibitor on 3-year clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function: a prospective cohort study from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR)

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are usually treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) if ACEIs are not tolerated. However, there is no data regarding the impact of switching from ACEIs to ARBs on long-term clinical outcomes in AMI patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) systolic function especially beyond 1 year. To investigate the effectiveness of treatment with ACEIs or ARBs on clinical outcomes over 3 years in AMI patients with preserved LV systolic function following percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHOD

It is a prospective cohort study using data from a nationwide large scale registry with 53 hospitals involved in treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in Korea. Between March 2011 and September 2015, we enrolled 6236 patients with AMI who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention and had a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥ 50%. Main outcome measures composite of total death or recurrent AMI over 3 years after AMI. Patients were divided into an ACEI group (n = 2945), ARB group (n = 2197), or no renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASI) treatment (n = 1094). We analyzed patients who changed treatment. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

After the adjustment with inverse probability weighting, the primary endpoints at 1 year, AMI patients receiving ACEIs showed overall better outcomes than ARBs [ARBs hazard ratio (HR) compared with ACEIs 1.384, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-1.71; P = 0.003]. However, 33% of patients receiving ACEIs switched to ARBs during the first year, while only about 1.5% switched from ARBs to ACEIs. When landmark analysis was performed from 1 year to the end of the study, RASI group showed a 31% adjusted reduction in primary endpoint compared to patients with no RASI group (HR, 0.74; 95% CI 0.56-0.97; P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

This result suggests that certain patients got benefit from treatment with ACEIs in the first year if tolerated, but switching to ARBs beyond the first year produced similar outcomes. RASI beyond the first year reduced death or recurrent AMI in AMI patients with preserved LV systolic function. CRIS Registration number: KCT0004990.

Effectiveness of Perindopril/Indapamide Single-Pill Combination in Uncontrolled Patients with Hypertension: A Pooled Analysis of the FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, ACES and PICASSO Observational Studies

INTRODUCTION

Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of a perindopril/indapamide (Per/Ind) single-pill combination (SPC) in a broad range of patient profiles, including subgroups with varying hypertension severity, age and cardiovascular risk profiles.

METHODS

Patient data from four large prospective observational studies (FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, PICASSO, ACES) were pooled. In each study, patients already treated for hypertension were switched to Per/Ind 10/2.5 mg SPC and systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP) measured at the 1-month (M1) and 3-month (M3) visits. Study endpoints included change in SBP and DBP from baseline to M1 and M3 and the percentage of patients achieving BP control (SBP/DBP < 140/90 mmHg for patients without diabetes or < 140/85 mmHg for patients with diabetes).

RESULTS

A total of 16,763 patients were enrolled and received Per/Ind (94% received the full dose of 10/2.5). Mean patient age was 61.4 years (36% were ≥ 65 years old), 57% were women, and 16% had isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). Mean baseline office SBP/DBP was 162/94 mmHg, and mean duration of hypertension was 11 years. Cardiovascular risk factors and comorbid conditions were common in this population. Significant mean reductions in SBP (- 23 mmHg) and DBP (- 11 mmHg) were observed at M1 compared with baseline (P < 0.001), which were maintained at M3 (- 30 mmHg and - 14 mmHg, respectively). At M3, BP control was achieved by 70% of patients (78% for ISH). In patients with SBP ≥ 180 mmHg at baseline (grade III hypertension), the mean SBP/DBP decrease was - 51/- 20 mmHg and 53% achieved BP control. Per/Ind was well tolerated with an overall rate of adverse events of 1.3%, most frequently cough and dizziness at rates of 0.3% and 0.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this hypertensive population including difficult-to-control patient subgroups, switching to Per/Ind 10/2.5 mg SPC led to rapid and important reductions in BP. BP control was achieved in 70% of patients overall in an everyday practice context.