Trial reportJournal of Korean medical science2019
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers as an Alternative to Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Trial report in Journal of Korean medical science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02385682 (CardiOvascular Risk and idEntificAtion of Potential High-risk Population in Korean Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
CardiOvascular Risk and idEntificAtion of Potential High-risk Population in Korean Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (COREA-AMI)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Efficacy and Safety of Bisoprolol in the Treatment of Myocardial Infarction with Cardiac Insufficiency.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Trial
- Review
- Comparison Between Fimasartan Versus Other Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients With Heart Failure After Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Early ACEI/ARB use and in-hospital outcomes of acute myocardial infarction patients with systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Findings from the CCC-ACS project.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are the first choice for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) should be considered in patients intolerant to ACEIs. Although previous studies support the use of ARBs as an alternative to ACEIs, these studies showed inconsistent results. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the clinical impact of ARBs as an alternative to ACEIs in patients with AMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
methodsThe CardiOvascular Risk and idEntificAtion of potential high-risk population in AMI (COREA-AMI) registry enrolled all consecutive patients with AMI undergoing PCI. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization due to heart failure.
resultsOf the 3,328 eligible patients, ARBs replaced ACEIs in 816 patients, while 824 patients continued to use ACEIs and 826 patients continued to use ARBs. The remaining 862 patients did not receive ACEIs/ARBs. After the adjustment with inverse probability weighting, the primary endpoints in the first groups were similar (7.5% vs. 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.05;
conclusionThe alternative use of ARBs following initial treatment with ACEIs demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes to those with continued use of ACEIs and is associated with an improved rate of composite events compared to no ACEI/ARB use in patients with AMI undergoing PCI.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02385682.
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.