SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012
Angiotensin receptor blockers for heart failure.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Hypoglycemic Drugs on Patients with Heart Failure with or without T2DM: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- SBC Guideline on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Patients with Cardiomyopathy of Chagas Disease - 2023.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2023Guideline
- Problems with the outcome measures in randomized controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine in treating chronic heart failure caused by coronary heart disease: a systematic review.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Pooled it
- Pharmacological interventions for heart failure in people with chronic kidney disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- The Japanese Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH 2019).Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2019Guideline
- Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertensive patients with myocardial infarction or heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2019Pooled it
- Implantable cardiac defibrillators for people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Interventions for preventing and treating cardiac complications in Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy and X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Improving Treatment Adherence in Heart Failure.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Pooled it
- All in on ARBs: Is it time to fold the ACEIs?Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2026Review
- From Plants to Protection: Cardiorenal Benefits in Non-Diabetic Chronic Kidney Disease and Heart Failure.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Renal-Cardiac Crosstalk in the Pathogenesis and Progression of Heart Failure.Circulation research · 2025Review
- Deprescribing strategies in older patients with heart failure.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Review
- Letter to the Editor: Safety of combination therapy of azilsartan medoxomil and amlodipine: a population-based cohort study.Epidemiology and health · 2025Article
- Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and Arrhythmias in Ventricular Hypertrophy.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Article
- Comanagement With Nephrologist Care Is Associated With Fewer Cardiovascular Events Among Liver Transplant Recipients With Chronic Kidney Disease.Transplantation direct · 2021Article
- Selective loss of resident macrophage-derived insulin-like growth factor-1 abolishes adaptive cardiac growth to stress.Immunity · 2021Article
- Use of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors in Older Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.Cardiac failure review · 2019Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic heart failure (HF) is a prevalent world-wide. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for chronic HF although their role is controversial.
objectivesTo assess the benefit and harm of ARBs compared with ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) or placebo on mortality, morbidity and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with symptomatic HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction or preserved systolic function. SEARCH
methodsClinical trials were identified by searching CENTRAL, HTA, and DARE , (The Cochrane Library 2010 Issue 3), as well as MEDLINE (2002 to July 2010), and EMBASE (2002 to July 2010). Reference lists of retrieved articles and systematic reviews were checked for additional studies not identified by the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double blind randomised controlled trials in men and women of all ages who have symptomatic (NYHA Class II to IV) HF and: 1) left ventricular systolic dysfunction, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; or 2) preserved ejection fraction, defined as LVEF >40%. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data from included studies. MAIN
resultsTwenty two studies evaluated the effects of ARBs in 17,900 patients with a LVEF ≤40% (mean 2.2 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 0.87 [95% CI 0.76, 1.00]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 0.94 [95% CI 0.88, 1.01]) compared with placebo.Total mortality (RR 1.05 [95% CI 0.91, 1.22]), total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.92, 1.08]), MI (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.62, 1.63]), and stroke (RR 1.63 [0.77, 3.44]) did not differ between ARBs and ACEIs but withdrawals due to adverse effects were lower with ARBs (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.52, 0.76]). Combinations of ARBs plus ACEIs increased the risk of withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 1.34 [95% CI 1.19, 1.51]) but did not reduce total mortality or total hospital admissions versus ACEI alone.Two placebo-controlled studies evaluated ARBs in 7151 patients with a LVEF >40% (mean 3.7 years). ARBs did not reduce total mortality (RR 1.02 [95% CI 0.93, 1.12]) or total morbidity as measured by total hospitalisations (RR 1.00 [95% CI 0.97, 1.05]) compared with placebo. Withdrawals due to adverse effects were higher with ARBs versus placebo when all patients were pooled irrespective of LVEF (RR 1.06 [95% CI 1.01, 1.12]). AUTHORS'
conclusionsIn patients with symptomatic HF and systolic dysfunction or with preserved ejection fraction, ARBs compared to placebo or ACEIs do not reduce total mortality or morbidity. ARBs are better tolerated than ACEIs but do not appear to be as safe and well tolerated as placebo in terms of withdrawals due to adverse effects. Adding an ARB in combination with an ACEI does not reduce total mortality or total hospital admission but increases withdrawals due to adverse effects compared with ACEI alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.