Role of renin-angiotensin system antagonists on long-term mortality post-percutaneous coronary intervention in reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

AIMS: The use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin II-receptor blockers (ARBs) post-myocardial infarction (MI) is supported by evidence based on trials performed in the thrombolysis era. This was prior to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) being routine practice, and with little direct evidence for the use of these medications in patients with preserved left ventricular (LV) function. This study sought to determine whether there is an association between ACEi/ARB use after PCI for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and long-term all-cause mortality, with a particular focus on patients with preserved LV function. METHODS: This multicentre, observational study evaluated prospectively collected data of 21,388 patients (> 18 years old) that underwent PCI for NSTEMI and STEMI between 2005 and 2018, and were alive at 30 day follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 83.8% of patients were using ACEi/ARBs. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated ACEi/ARB use was associated with a significantly lower mortality in the entire cohort (15.0 vs. 22.7%; p < 0.001) with a mean follow-up of 5.58 years; and independently associated with 24% lower mortality by Cox proportional hazards modelling (HR 0.76, CI 0.67-0.85, p < 0.001). ACEi/ARB therapy was also associated with significantly lower mortality in patients with reduced or preserved LV function, with greater survival benefit with worse LV dysfunction. CONCLUSION: ACEi/ARB therapy post-PCI is associated with significantly lower long-term mortality in patients with reduced and preserved LV function. These findings provide contemporary evidence for using these agents in the current era of routine primary PCI, including those with preserved EF.

Role of beta blockers following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome.

AIMS: There is a paucity of evidence supporting routine beta blocker (BB) use in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to evaluate BB use post PCI and its association with mortality. Furthermore, the study aimed to evaluate the association between BB and mortality in the subgroups of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%, LVEF 35%-50% and LVEF >50%. METHODS: Using a large PCI registry, data from patients with ACS between January 2005 and June 2017 who were alive at 30 days were analysed. Those patients taking BB at 30 days were compared with those who were not taking BB. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The mean follow-up was 5.3±3.5 years. RESULTS: Of the 17 562 patients, 83.3% were on BB. Mortality was lower in the BB group (13.1% vs 19.5%, p=0.0001). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model showed that BB use was associated with lower overall mortality (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, p=0.014). In the subgroup analysis, BB use was associated with reduced mortality in LVEF <35% (adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, p=0.013), LVEF 35%-50% (adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95, p=0.01), but not LVEF >50% (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21, p=0.74). CONCLUSION: BB use remains high and is associated with reduced mortality. This reduction in mortality is primarily seen in those with reduced ejection fraction, but not in those with preserved ejection fraction.

Medical therapy versus implantable cardioverter -defibrillator in preventing sudden cardiac death in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure: a meta-analysis of > 35,000 patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) are at high risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD). Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have an important role in preventing SCD in selected patients with LVSD and chronic heart failure (CHF). Drug therapies for LVSD and CHF also appear to also be useful in reducing SCD. However, the magnitude of benefit of these approaches on SCD is uncertain. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis comparing the effect on SCD achieved by ICDs versus medical therapies, additional to standard background medical therapies including ACE inhibitors and/or beta-blockers (BBs). METHODS: Our meta-analysis included trials of >100 patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), i.e.,<40%. Fourteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria for meta-analysis, 10 involving medical therapies (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs], ivabradine, n3-polyunsaturated fatty acid [PUFA], ferric carboxymaltose and aliskiren) and four involving ICDs. Results were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel random effects method. RESULTS: Drug therapy (n=36,172) reduced the risk of SCD overall (risk ratio (RR)=0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.82-0.98, p=0.02) when compared to placebo. MRAs alone were most effective in reducing SCD (n=11,032, RR=0.79 [0.68-0.91], p=0.001). ICD insertion greatly reduced SCD (n=4,269, RR=0.39 [0.30-0.51], p<0.00001) compared with placebo. The difference in treatment effect between the ICD and drug therapy was significant (p<0.002), and between ICD and MRAs (p<0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Drug therapies when added to a standard background regimen comprising ACE inhibitor and/or BB reduced SCD overall and MRAs alone were most effective in this regard. ICDs were more effective than drugs in SCD abrogation. However, the added procedural morbidity and the cost of ICD need to be considered in decision-making re-approach to SCD reduction in the individual patient.