ArticleKorean circulation journal2020
Impact of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers on Clinical Outcomes after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Based on Data from the Korean National Health Insurance Database (2005-2014).
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renin-Angiotensin System Blockade in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Is There a Winner?Korean circulation journal · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe effectiveness of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) compared with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has not been established. We investigated the effects of ARBs on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in AMI patients.
methodsPatients receiving ACEIs or ARBs after AMI treated with PCI between January 2005 and December 2014 were selected from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. The primary endpoint was major cardiovascular adverse event (MACE; all-cause death, myocardial infarct [MI], or stroke).
resultsWe included patients regularly taking ACEIs (n=22,331) or ARBs (n=28,533) (medication possession ratio ≥80%). Compared with the ACEI group, the ARB group contained more females (31% vs. 18%), were older (mean, 63 vs. 60 years), and had more comorbidities, including hypertension (62.8% vs. 44.8%), diabetes (33.9% vs. 26.4%), congestive heart failure (7.9% vs. 4.3%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25.5% vs. 18.9%), and end-stage renal disease (1.3% vs. 0.4%) (p<0.001 for all). After propensity score-matching, ARBs were associated with a 23% lower risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.774; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.715-0.838; p<0.001) than ACEIs. ARB use was also associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (HR, 0.741; 95% CI, 0.659-0.834; p<0.001), MI (HR, 0.731; 95% CI, 0.638-0.837; p<0.001), and revascularization (HR, 0.816; 95% CI, 0.773-0.861; p<0.001).
conclusionsARB use was associated with a lower risk of MACE, MI, and revascularization than ACEIs in our retrospective analysis of AMI patients who underwent PCI.
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.