An international perspective on heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction complicating myocardial infarction: the VALIANT registry.

AIMS: We analysed the contemporary incidence, outcomes, and predictors of heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) before discharge in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI). The baseline presence of HF or LVSD, or its development during hospitalisation, increases short- and long-term risk after MI, yet its incidence, predictors, and outcomes have not been well described in a large, international, general MI population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The VALIANT registry included 5573 consecutive MI patients at 84 hospitals in nine countries from 1999 to 2001. A multivariable logistic survival model was constructed using baseline variables to determine the adjusted mortality risk for those with in-hospital HF and/or LVSD. Baseline variables were also tested for associations with in-hospital HF and/or LVSD. Of the 5566 patients analysed, 42% had HF and/or LVSD during hospitalisation. Their in-hospital mortality rate was 13.0% compared with 2.3% for those without HF and/or without LVSD. After adjustment for other baseline risk factors, in-hospital HF and/or LVSD carried a hazard ratio for in-hospital mortality of 4.12 (95% confidence interval: 3.08-5.56). Patients with HF and/or LVSD also had disproportionately higher rates of other cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: HF and/or LVSD is common in the general contemporary MI population and precedes 80.3% of all in-hospital deaths after MI. Survivors of early MI-associated HF and/or LVSD have more complications, longer hospitalisations, and are more likely to die during hospitalisation. Although baseline variables can identify MI patients at highest risk for HF and/or LVSD, such patients are less likely to receive indicated procedures and medical therapies.     

Previously known and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: a major risk indicator after a myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction

AIMS: To characterize the relationship between known and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) and the risk of death and major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) complicated by heart failure (HF) and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). METHODS: The VALIANT trial enrolled 14,703 individuals with acute MI complicated by HF and/or LVSD. AF was assessed at presentation and at randomization (median 4.9 days after symptom onset). Primary outcomes were risk of death and major CV events 3 years following acute MI. RESULTS: A total of 1812 with current AF (AF between presentation and randomization), 339 patients with prior AF (history of AF without current AF), and 12,509 without AF were enrolled. Patients with AF were older; had more prior HF, angina, and MI, and received beta-blockers and thrombolytics less often than those without AF. Three-year mortality estimates were 20% in those without AF, 37% with current AF, and 38% with prior AF. Compared with patients without AF, the multivariable adjusted HR of death was 1.25 (1.03-1.52; p=0.03) for prior AF and 1.32 (1.20-1.45; p<0.0001) for current AF. HR for major CV events was 1.15 (0.98-1.35; p=0.08) and 1.21 (1.12-1.31; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: AF is associated with greater long-term mortality and adverse CV events with acute MI complicated by HF or LVSD.     

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in coronary artery disease and preserved left ventricular systolic function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients with coronary heart disease and preserved left ventricular (LV) function. BACKGROUND: The ACEIs have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and myocardial infarction (MI). However, there is conflicting evidence concerning the benefits of ACEIs in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and preserved LV systolic function. METHODS: An extensive search was performed to identify randomized, placebo-controlled trials of ACEI use in patients with CAD and preserved LV systolic function. Of 61 potentially relevant articles screened, 6 trials met the inclusion criteria. They were reviewed to determine cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal MI, all-cause mortality, and revascularization rates. We performed random-effect model meta-analyses and quantified between-studies heterogeneity with I(2). RESULTS: There were 16,772 patients randomized to ACEI and 16,728 patients randomized to placebo. Use of ACEIs was associated with a decrease in cardiovascular mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 0.96, p = 0.01), nonfatal MI (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.94, p = 0.003), all-cause mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94, p = 0.0003), and revascularization rates (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00, p = 0.04). There was no significant between-studies heterogeneity. Treatment of 100 patients for an average duration of 4.4 years prevents either of the adverse outcomes (one death, or one nonfatal myocardial infarction, or one cardiovascular death or one coronary revascularization procedure). CONCLUSIONS: The cumulative evidence provided by this meta-analysis shows a modest favorable effect of ACEIs on the outcome of patients with CAD and preserved LV systolic function.     

Therapies to prevent heart failure post-myocardial infarction

Heart failure (HF) is a common complication of myocardial infarction (MI) that carries a poor prognosis when present. HF and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) occur in approximately 40% of patients who suffer acute MI. The estimated mortality of patients developing HF or LVSD post-MI is 20% to 30%, with that risk varying based on the presence of HF upon initial assessment versus occurring later during the MI hospitalization. Clinical factors and comorbidities associated with post-MI HF include age, diabetes, hypertension, female gender, infarct size, and tachycardia. Factors associated with decreased survival in patients with post-MI HF include Killip class, age, low blood pressure, tachycardia, male gender, and anterior location of MI. Despite extensive data identifying this patient population as high risk, patients with post-MI HF or LVSD are significantly less likely to receive evidence-based medications or revascularization procedures than those without HF. Despite the high prevalence of HF after MI, few studies have examined therapies to prevent it. This review summarizes studies that reported the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of patients with post-MI HF or LVSD. Additionally, we discuss therapies to prevent post-MI HF and treatment of patients with post-MI HF and/or LVSD.     

Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch block in high-risk survivors of acute myocardial infarction: The VALIANT experience

BACKGROUND: In survivors of myocardial infarction (MI), new left bundle branch block (LBBB) is associated with adverse outcomes, but its impact is not well described in post-MI patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and/or heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if new LBBB is an independent predictor of long-term fatal and nonfatal outcomes in high-risk survivors of MI by reviewing data from the VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial. METHODS: In VALIANT, 14,703 patients with LV systolic dysfunction and/or HF were randomized to valsartan, captopril, or both a mean of 5 days after MI. Baseline ECG data were available from 14,259 patients. We assessed the predictive value of new LBBB for death and major cardiovascular outcomes after 3 years, adjusting for multiple baseline covariates including LV ejection fraction. RESULTS: At follow-up, patients with new LBBB (608 [4.2%]) compared with patients without new LBBB had more comorbidities and increased adjusted risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-1.6), cardiovascular death (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.7), HF (HR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6), MI (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.9), and the composite of death, HF, or MI (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.6). CONCLUSION: In post-MI survivors with LV systolic dysfunction and/or HF, new LBBB was an independent predictor of all major adverse cardiovascular outcomes during long-term follow-up. This readily available ECG marker should be considered a major risk factor for long-term cardiovascular complications in high-risk patients after MI.     

Angiotensin receptor blockers in heart failure: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the effect of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on mortality and hospitalization in patients with heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the efficacy of ARBs as substitute or adjunctive therapy to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in the treatment of HF. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials that compared ARBs with either placebo or ACEIs in patients with symptomatic HF. The pooled outcomes were all-cause mortality and hospitalization for HF. RESULTS: Seventeen trials involving 12,469 patients were included. Overall, ARBs were not superior to controls in the pooled rates of death (odds ratio: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 1.23) or hospitalization (0.86; 0.69 to 1.06). Stratified analysis, however, showed a non-significant trend in benefit of ARBs over placebo in reducing mortality (0.68; 0.38 to 1.22) and hospitalization (0.67; 0.29 to 1.51) when given in the absence of background ACEI therapy. When compared directly with ACEIs, ARBs were not superior in reducing either mortality (1.09; 0.92 to 1.29) or hospitalization (0.95; 0.80 to 1.13). In contrast, the combination therapy of ARBs and ACEIs was superior to ACEIs alone in reducing hospitalization (0.74; 0.64 to 0.86) but not mortality (1.04; 0.91 to 1.20). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis cannot confirm that ARBs are superior in reducing all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization in patients with symptomatic HF, particularly when compared with ACEIs. However, the use of ARBs as monotherapy in the absence of ACEIs or as combination therapy with ACEIs appears promising.     

Predictors of the first heart failure hospitalization in patients who are stable survivors of myocardial infarction complicated by pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular dysfunction: a VALIANT study.

AIMS: We sought to assess the incidence of and prognostic factors for heart failure (HF) hospitalization among survivors of high-risk acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the risk of an initial hospitalization for HF in 11 040 stable MI patients (no major non-fatal cardiovascular events or deaths within 45 days of randomization) without a prior history of HF enrolled in the VALIANT trial. Multivariable models were developed to identify independent predictors of HF and HF or cardiovascular death. Of 11 040 stable post-MI patients, 1139 (10.3%) developed HF during the median 25-month follow-up at a rate of approximately 3.4% per year. Most patients, 824 (72.3%), did not have a symptomatic recurrent MI between randomization and the onset of HF. The most important predictors of HF were older age, antecedent diabetes, prior MI before index MI, and reduced renal function. HF markedly increased the risk of death [HR(hazard ratio) 8.22; 95% CI(confidence interval), 7.49-9.01]. CONCLUSION: HF post high risk-MI occurs in a time-dependent fashion and is usually not directly related to re-infarction. Patients who experience HF beyond the acute phase have increased mortality. Long-term survivors of high-risk MI should be followed closely and treated aggressively beyond the acute MI period.     

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blockade use in relation to outcomes in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) plays an important role in atrial fibrillation (AF). Evidence shows that blocking the RAAS with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has a definite role in preventing new onset AF and in maintaining sinus rhythm in recurrent AF. Our aim was to determine if ACEI/ARB treatment was associated with clinical outcomes [stroke/systemic embolic events (SEE), mortality] in a controlled, anticoagulated AF population. METHODS: An ancillary retrospective cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of participants in the Stroke Prevention using an ORal Thrombin Inhibitor in AF (SPORTIF) III and V trials, in relation to use (or nonuse) of ACEI/ARBs. RESULTS: Rates of stroke/SEEs, mortality or major bleeding were no different between users and nonusers in the whole cohort, or in relation to the presence/absence of hypertension, coronary artery disease and previous stroke/transient ischaemic attack, nor amongst those aged <75 years. Patients aged > or = 75 years taking ACEIs or ARBs had lower mortality (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52-0.95), but no significant influence on other end-points was noted. Diabetics and those with left ventricular dysfunction on ximelagatran had a higher odds ratio of abnormal liver enzyme levels. There was no apparent benefit of ACEIs or ARBs on other event rates. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis from two large randomized trials of anticoagulation has not demonstrated a significant benefit of ACEI or ARB use amongst AF patients, except amongst elderly subjects.     

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in heart failure: Physicians' prescribing behavior

Background: Several studies document an underuse of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in heart failure (HF) patients, despite their proven efficacy and good tolerability. Also, there is some evidence that the doses used in clinical practice are far lower than those used in clinical trials.Methods and Results: To identify patterns of ACEI use in HF patients this study examined data collected on admission day regarding demographic, clinical, and medical care characteristics of 355 patients hospitalized because of decompensated HF who were treated with and without ACEIs. Additionally, measures of in-hospital outcome were compared among the two groups. Fifty-eight point six percent of patients were receiving ACEIs at admission and 80.6% were treated with ACEIs during hospitalization. The average ACEI does was low. No differences were observed in age and measures of severity of HF between ACEI-prescribed and nonprescribed patients. Patterns that could explain ACEI underuse included female sex, lower systolic blood pressure, worse renal function, left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, use of alternate drugs (eg, spironolactone), and overall less intense medical management. Patterns associated with the use of lower doses of ACEIs included older age, higher New York Heart Association functional class, and lower systolic blood pressure. In-hospital death rates were significantly higher for patients not treated with ACEIs.Conclusions: This study suggests that many patients eligible for ACEI treatment were deprived of the advantages of these drugs because of erroneous clinical strategies. Nevertheless, the patterns of ACEI use were similar to those reported by other studies. Clinical trials conducted to determine the risk/benefit ratio of ACEI use in patients with renal dysfunction and the utility of ACEIs in diastolic HF, as well as programs to educate care providers on proper use of ACEIs in HF patients, are strongly recommended.     

Inhibition of RAAS—When is it too much?

Deactivation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is clearly beneficial in patients with recent myocardial infarction and chronic heart failure. Most of the experience with deactivation of the RAAS has been collected in placebo-controlled randomized trials of angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibition (ACEI). The hypothesis that angiotensin receptor blockade may be a better approach to deactivate the RAAS has not survived the test of time. Despite the extensive experience with ACEI and aldosterone receptor blockade in patients with recent myocardial infarction and chronic heart failure, several issues remain unanswered. These are addressed in this review.     

Management of post-myocardial infarction patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction

After a myocardial infarction (MI), patients are at risk for reinfarction, heart failure (HF), and sudden death. This risk is much higher in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Although post-MI patients with LVSD have an even greater risk of mortality and morbidity, they had been generally excluded from clinical trials. This article reviews recent clinical trials that included post-MI patients with LVSD with or without signs and symptoms of HF. These trials have defined the benefits of pharmacologic management and device therapy in patients who survive an MI in the presence of LVSD.     

Target‐organ protection with combination renin‐angiotensin‐system blockade

Pharmacologic blockade of the renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system (RAS) has antihypertensive, anti‐atherogenic, antioxidant, and anti‐inflammatory effects. Treatment with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) has been demonstrated to prevent atrial fibrillation and new‐onset diabetes, and provide cardiac, cerebral, and renal protection. Combination therapy with ACEIs and ARBs, compared with monotherapy, provides enhanced reno‐ and cardioprotection, although available data indicate that combination RAS blockade may be beneficial only in select patient groups, such as those with diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, or heart failure (HF). In certain high‐risk patients, the use of ARBs provides comparable efficacy to that observed with ACEIs. The efficacy of these agents may stem from pleiotropic effects beyond blood pressure (BP) reduction. Several studies demonstrate achievement of clinical endpoints without significant effects on BP. Copyright © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Predictors of late development of heart failure in stable survivors of myocardial infarction: the CARE study

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the predictors of heart failure (HF) development in long-term survivors of myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: Modern strategies of acute MI care have resulted in an increasing proportion of survivors at heightened risk of future non-fatal events, including HF. METHODS: We assessed the risk of developing HF in 3860 stable MI patients without a previous history of HF, who were enrolled in the Cholesterol And Recurrent Events (CARE) trial a median of 10 months post MI. Baseline characteristics of patients who did or did not develop HF during the five years of observation were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 243 patients (6.3%) developed HF in a linear pattern at a rate of 1.3%/year. Heart failure development markedly increased the risk of death (hazard ratio 10.2, 95% confidence interval 7.7 to 13.5). Fifty-seven patients (23.5%) who developed HF had a recurrent MI between enrollment and the onset of HF, increasing the risk fivefold. The most important predictors of HF were age and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other predictors included diabetes, history of hypertension, previous MI, and baseline heart rate. Moderate exercise three or more times per week was independently associated with a 30% lower risk of HF. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure post MI occurs in a time-dependent fashion, which is usually not a direct consequence of a detectable interim MI. Patients who experience late-onset HF have a 10-fold increased risk of death compared with other MI survivors. Baseline characteristics can risk stratify patients at high risk of subsequent HF.     

Rationale and design of the Virginia Commonwealth University–Anakinra Remodeling Trial‐3 (VCU‐ART3): A randomized,placebo‐controlled,double‐blinded,multicenter study

There is clear association between the intensity of the acute inflammatory response during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and adverse prognosis after AMI. Interleukin‐1 (IL‐1) is a pro‐inflammatory cytokine released during AMI and involved in adverse remodeling and heart failure (HF). We describe a study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of IL‐1 blockade using an IL‐1 receptor antagonist (anakinra) during the acute phase of ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The Virginia Commonwealth University–Anakinra Remodeling Trial‐3 (VCU‐ART3; http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01950299) is a phase 2, multicenter, double‐blinded, randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trial comparing anakinra 100 mg once or twice daily vs matching placebo (1:1:1) for 14 days in 99 patients with STEMI. Patients who present to the hospital with STEMI within 12 hours of symptom onset will be eligible for enrollment. Patients will be excluded for a history of HF (functional class III–IV), severe valvular disease, severe kidney disease (stage 4–5), active infection, recent use of immunosuppressive drugs, active malignancy, or chronic autoimmune/auto‐inflammatory diseases. We will measure the difference in the area under the curve for C‐reactive protein between admission and day 14, separately comparing each of the anakinra groups with the placebo group. The P value will be considered significant if <0.025 to adjust for multiple comparisons. Patients will also be followed for up to 12 months from enrollment to evaluate cardiac remodeling (echocardiography), cardiac function (echocardiography), and major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (cardiovascular death, MI, revascularization, and new onset of HF).     

Prognosis of all-cause heart failure and borderline left ventricular systolic dysfunction: 5 year mortality follow-up of the Echocardiographic Heart of England Screening Study (ECHOES).

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is reported to have an essentially malignant prognosis that can be modified by several interventions. Most outcome data on HF are available from randomized controlled treatment trials and longitudinal epidemiological studies. However, for a number of reasons, neither type of study have, to date, provided generalizable data on HF mortality. Furthermore, data on the prognosis of borderline left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are even more limited. METHODS AND RESULTS: ECHOES (Echocardiographic Heart of England Screening Study) screened a total of 6,162 patients from a total of 10,161 invited (61% response rate). Patients were randomly selected from four pre-specified cohorts: the general population, diuretic users, those with a prior clinical label of HF, and a population with risk factors for HF, to identify the prevalence of HF and LVSD based on clinical assessment, ECG, and echocardiography. Causes of death during a 5-9 year follow-up period were recorded from routine mortality statistics. The 5-year survival rate of the general population was 93%, compared with 69% of those with LVSD without HF, 62% with HF and no LVSD, and 53% with HF plus LVSD. Survival improved significantly with increasing ejection fraction (EF) (log rank test for trend, chi(2) = 534.5, 1, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The ECHOES mortality data confirm the poor prognosis of patients suffering prevalent HF across the community with a mortality risk estimate of 9% per year. Borderline systolic dysfunction (EF 40-50%) on echocardiography carries a poor prognosis.     

Heart failure on admission and the risk of stroke following acute myocardial infarction: the VALIANT registry.

AIMS: We sought to assess the relative contribution of heart failure (HF) on admission for an acute myocardial infarction (MI) to the subsequent in-hospital stroke risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: The VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) registry enrolled 5573 consecutive MI patients at 84 international sites from 1999 to 2001. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for stroke and adjusted for baseline characteristics, Killip Class, and risk factors for stroke, such as diabetes and prior HF. In-hospital stroke occurred in 81 (1.5%) patients. HF was present on admission in 38% of patients who developed a stroke and in 24% who did not (P=0.001). Older age (OR 1.03 increase/year, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.04), Killip Class III (OR 1.66, CI 0.86-3.19) or IV (OR 4.85, CI 1.69-13.93), history of hypertension (OR 1.73, CI 1.06-2.82), and history of stroke (OR 1.89, CI 1.06-3.37) were more common in patients who had in-hospital stroke. In-hospital mortality in patients with and without stroke was 27.2 and 6.5%, respectively (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with stroke after MI have a dismal prognosis. The presence of HF on admission for an acute MI increases in-hospital stroke risk. HF treatments may modify the risk of stroke.     

Neurohormonal modulation: The new paradigm of pharmacological treatment of heart failure

The current paradigm of medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is triple neurohormonal blockade with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), a beta-blocker (BB) and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). However, three-year mortality remains over 30%.Stimulation of counter-regulatory systems in addition to neurohormonal blockade constitutes a new paradigm, termed neurohormonal modulation. Sacubitril/valsartan is the first element of this new strategy.PARADIGM-HF was the largest randomized clinical trial conducted in HFrEF. It included 8442 patients and compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan versus enalapril. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization due to HF, which occurred in 914 (21.8%) patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan and in 1117 (26.5%) patients receiving enalapril (HR 0.8, 95% CI 0.73-0.87, p=0.0000002; NNT 21). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced both primary endpoint components, as well as sudden cardiac death, death due to worsening HF, and death from all causes. Patients on sacubitril/valsartan reported less frequent deterioration of HF and of quality of life, and discontinued study medication less frequently because of an adverse event.PARADIGM-HF demonstrated the superiority of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril, with a 20% greater impact on cardiovascular mortality compared to ACEIs. Accordingly, in 2016, the European (ESC) and American (ACC/AHA/HFSA) cardiology societies simultaneously issued a class I recommendation for the replacement of ACEIs by sacubitril/valsartan in patients resembling PARADIGM-HF trial participants.     

Left ventricular assessment in myocardial infarction: the VALIANT registry

BACKGROUND: How often echocardiography and cardiac catheterization are used to evaluate left ventricular (LV) function in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) and how they are associated with quality of care is unknown. METHODS: Patients with MI in the Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction (VALIANT) registry were divided into those with (n = 1423) and without (n = 3968) heart failure (HF), and the use of either echocardiography or cardiac catheterization for LV assessment in each group was compared along with associated baseline characteristics. We evaluated the association between LV assessment and discharge medications. Using a multivariable model with a propensity analysis, we evaluated the association of LV assessment with in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: Of the patients with HF, 322 (22.6%) had no LV assessment. Patients with HF with LV assessment were discharged more frequently under treatment with aspirin (81.3% vs 70.0%; P<.001), beta-blockers (65.6% vs 56.4%; P = .008), clopidogrel (30.4% vs 14.0%; P<.001), and statins (45.9% vs 34.2%; P<.001). Patients without HF who underwent LV assessment were discharged more frequently under treatment with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (53.8% vs 41.5%; P<.001). After adjustment for regional use, other covariates, and revascularization, LV assessment was associated with lower in-hospital mortality in patients with HF (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.45; P<.001) and in patients without HF (adjusted OR, 0.30; P<.001). After excluding deaths during the first 2 days, LV assessment remained associated with lower mortality in patients with HF (adjusted OR, 0.59; P = .03) and in patients without HF (adjusted OR, 0.41; P<.001). CONCLUSION: Left ventricular assessment was frequently not performed during the in-hospital stay of patients with acute MI, including those with clinical HF, and its use was associated with better quality of care.     

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor induced cough compared with placebo,and other antihypertensives: A systematic review,and network meta-analysis

Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05–2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32–6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient's comorbidity.