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)open access
- Kim, K.-H.; Choi, B.G.; Rha, S.-W.; Choi, C.U.; Jeong, M.-H.; Ahn, T.H.; Yoon, J.; Kim, H.-S.; Seung, K.-B.; Gwon, H.-C.; Chae, S.C.; Kim, C.-J.; Cha, K.S.; Lee, J.-H.; Chae, J.K.; Joo, S.-J.; Yoon, C.-H.; Hur, S.-H.; Seong, I.-W.; Hwang, K.-K.; Kim, D.-I.; Oh, S.S.K.; Hwang, J.-Y.; Jeong, M.H.; Other KAMIR-NIH investigators
- Issue Date
- BioMed Central Ltd
- AMI; Preserved LV systolic function; RAS inhibitor
- BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, v.21, no.1
- Journal Title
- BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
- 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. ? 2021, The Author(s).
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
- College of Medicine > Department of Medicine > Journal Articles
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.