Comparison of 5-Year Survival After Acute Myocardial Infarction Using Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Versus Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker
Comparison of 5-Year Survival After Acute Myocardial Infarction Using Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Versus Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.03.055
复制
发表时间：
2014-07-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Komuro, Issei
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hara, Masahiko;Sakata, Yasuhiko;Komuro, Issei
在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗时代，很少有研究探讨血管紧张素II受体阻滞剂(ARE)是否是急性心肌梗死(AMI)后长期使用血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂(ACEI)的实用替代品。我们比较了ACEI和ARE在大阪急性冠脉功能不全研究中登记的急性心肌梗死患者的5年生存率。研究对象分为3组：ACEI组(n=4,425)，ARB组(n=2,158)，或未服用这两种药物的患者(n=2,442)。据记录，共有661人死亡。Cox回归分析显示，使用ACEI或ARB治疗可降低5年死亡率(调整后的危险比[HR]为0.70，95%可信区间[CI]为0.58至0.83，p
Few studies have investigated whether angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARE) is a practical alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) for long-term use after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in real-world practice in the percutaneous coronary intervention era. We compared 5-year survival benefits of ACEI and ARE in patients with AMI registered in the Osaka Acute Coronary Insufficiency Study. Study subjects were divided into 3 groups: ACEI (n = 4,425), ARB (n = 2,158), or patients without either drug (n = 2,442). A total of 661 deaths were recorded. Cox regression analysis revealed that treatment with either ACEI or ARB was associated with reduced 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 0.83, p