ArticleDrugs & aging2020
Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Older Nursing Home Residents After Myocardial Infarction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Drugs & aging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence regarding differences in outcomes between angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) among older nursing home (NH) residents after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is limited.
objectivesThe purpose of our study was to estimate the post-AMI effects of ARBs versus ACEIs on mortality, rehospitalization, and functional decline outcomes in this important population.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used national Medicare claims linked to Minimum Data Set assessments. The study population included individuals aged ≥ 65 years who resided in a US NH ≥ 30 days, were hospitalized for AMI between May 2007 and March 2010, and returned to the NH. We compared 90-day mortality, rehospitalization, and functional decline outcomes between ARB and ACEI users with inverse-probability-of-treatment-weighted binomial and multinomial logistic regression models.
resultsOf the 2765 NH residents, 270 (9.8%) used ARBs and 2495 (90.2%) used ACEIs. The mean age of ARB versus ACEI users was 82.3 versus 82.7 years, respectively. No marked differences existed between ARB and ACEI users for mortality [odds ratio (OR) 1.18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-1.79], rehospitalization (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.90-1.65), or functional decline (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.88-1.74). In subgroup analyses, ARBs were associated with increased mortality and rehospitalization in individuals with moderate to severe cognitive impairment and with increased rehospitalization in those aged < 85 years.
conclusionsOur findings align with prior data and suggest that clinicians can prescribe either ARBs or ACEIs post-AMI for secondary prevention in NH residents, although the subgroup findings merit further scrutiny and replication. Providers should consider factors such as patient preferences, class-specific adverse events, and costs when prescribing.
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.