Related Experiment Videos
Cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients without heart failure treated with ARBs: a systematic review and
Mohamad M Al Khalaf1, Lukman Thalib, Suhail A R Doi
1Department of Medicine, Kuwait University, Safat, Kuwait.
Insights
Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) do not offer cardiovascular protection comparable to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients without heart failure. Caution is advised when using ARBs as an ACEI substitute, as they may increase myocardial infarction risk.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Pharmacology
- Clinical Trials
Background:
- Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) are frequently prescribed as alternatives to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) for patients without heart failure.
- The comparative efficacy of ARBs versus ACEIs regarding cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in this patient population remains uncertain.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically review and meta-analyze the impact of ARBs on cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients without heart failure.
- To compare the effectiveness of ARBs against control groups in preventing myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death.
Main Methods:
- A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) from 1990 to 2008.
- Included were 37 randomized controlled trials involving over 89,000 patients, comparing ARBs to non-ARB control groups.
- Data on myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death were extracted and analyzed.
Main Results:
- ARBs showed a statistically significant increase in the odds of myocardial infarction (OR 1.09, p=0.05) compared to controls in the subgroup without heart failure.
- No statistically significant differences were observed for cardiovascular death or all-cause death.
- A trend towards fewer strokes in the ARB group was noted, but heterogeneity precluded pooled analysis.
Conclusions:
- Current evidence does not support ARBs as conferring cardiovascular protection similar to ACEIs in non-heart failure patients.
- The use of ARBs as a substitute for ACEIs in patients tolerant of ACEIs, without a heart failure indication, should be approached with caution.
- While a potential stroke benefit exists, its quantification is limited by study heterogeneity.
Background And Objective:
Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (ARBs) are widely used as a substitute for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) to treat patients without heart failure, but their effect on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality has not been clearly determined. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the impact of ARBs on cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients without heart failure.
Methods:
A computerized literature search was carried out using PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, from January 1990 to April 2008. The following search terms were used: 'hypertension', 'clinical trial', 'sartan', 'ARB', 'angiotensin receptor antagonist', 'losartan', 'candesartan', 'valsartan', 'irbesartan', 'eprosartan', 'telmisartan', 'olmesartan', 'coronary disease', 'coronary heart disease', 'myocardial infarction', 'cardiovascular disease', 'cerebrovascular disease', and 'stroke'. Criteria for inclusion of clinical trials in our meta-analysis were the use of a randomized control group not receiving an ARB and the availability of outcome data for any one of four endpoints: myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death (these were not always pre-specified endpoints in all trials). Out of 45 potentially relevant studies, 37 trials met the inclusion criteria. We tabulated all occurrences of these four adverse outcomes.
Results:
Homogenous subgroups were combined by means of a fixed-effects model, while heterogenous subgroups were not combined. In the subgroup without heart failure, ARBs, when compared with the control group, had an odds ratio of 1.09 (95% CI 1.00, 1.18; p = 0.05) for MI. Other endpoints, namely, cardiovascular death and all-cause death, did not reach statistical significance. There was a clear trend for fewer strokes in the ARB group, but these studies were clearly heterogenous, and therefore a pooled risk estimate was not computed.
Conclusion:
After pooling more than 89 000 patients, there is no evidence to suggest that ARBs confer cardiovascular protection akin to ACEIs, and the results that emerged are not in favor of ARB therapy in terms of its use as a substitute for ACEIs in non-heart failure patients. ARBs may have a small benefit in terms of stroke risk, but the studies are heterogenous, making it very difficult to quantify this effect. Given that ACEIs protect against both stroke and MI, caution is advised in the use of ARBs as a substitute for ACEIs in patients without a heart failure indication, who are tolerant of an ACEI.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure Drugs: Inhibitors of Renin-Angiotensin System
Aortic Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Antihypertensive Drugs: Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers
Heart Failure Drugs: β-Blockers
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care