Author/Authors :
Hara، نويسنده , , Masahiko and Sakata، نويسنده , , Yasuhiko and Nakatani، نويسنده , , Daisaku and Suna، نويسنده , , Shinichiro and Usami، نويسنده , , Masaya and Matsumoto، نويسنده , , Sen and Sugitani، نويسنده , , Toshifumi and Nishino، نويسنده , , Masami and Sato، نويسنده , , Hiroshi and Kitamura، نويسنده , , Tetsuhisa and Nanto، نويسنده , , Shinsuke and Hamasaki، نويسنده , , Toshimitsu and Hori، نويسنده , , Masatsugu and Komuro، نويسنده , , Issei، نويسنده ,
Abstract :
Few studies have investigated whether angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) 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 ARB 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 <0.001 and HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.98, p = 0.03, respectively). However, Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression analyses based on propensity score revealed that ACEI was associated with better survival than ARB from 2 to 5 years after survival discharge (adjusted HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.74, p <0.001). These findings were confirmed in a propensity score–matched population. In conclusion, treatment with ACEI was associated with better 5-year survival after AMI.
