Assuntos
Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca , Próteses Valvulares Cardíacas , Insuficiência da Valva Pulmonar , Valva Pulmonar , Obstrução do Fluxo Ventricular Externo , Cateterismo Cardíaco , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/efeitos adversos , Ventrículos do Coração/cirurgia , Humanos , Desenho de Prótese , Valva Pulmonar/diagnóstico por imagem , Valva Pulmonar/cirurgia , Insuficiência da Valva Pulmonar/diagnóstico por imagem , Insuficiência da Valva Pulmonar/etiologia , Insuficiência da Valva Pulmonar/cirurgia , Stents , Resultado do Tratamento , Obstrução do Fluxo Ventricular Externo/diagnóstico por imagem , Obstrução do Fluxo Ventricular Externo/etiologia , Obstrução do Fluxo Ventricular Externo/cirurgiaRESUMO
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) showed comparable survival results in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, there is lack of evidence of the comparative effectiveness in preserved LVEF patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the selection between ACEi and ARB in preserved LVEF after an ACS confers a prognostic benefit, based on real life results. We analyzed a cohort of 3006 contemporary patients with LVEF ≥40% after an ACS. A propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis were performed to assess the association between treatment and events (death, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], HF, and combined event) for a mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.1 years. We found no significant differences between ACEi/ARB for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] for ARB: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.70-1.29), AMI (HR for ARB: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.95-1.89), HF (HR for ARB: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85-1.45), or combined end point (death, AMI and HF: HR for ARB: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.92-1.40). In conclusion, there are no prognostic differences between the use of ACEi and ARB in patients with LVEF ≥40% after ACS. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.