ArticlePloS one2023
Comparison of clinical outcomes of angiotensin receptor blockers with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in patients with acute myocardial infarction.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors versus Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Older Patients with acute Myocardial Infarction after a Successful Stent Implantation.Annals of geriatric medicine and research · 2025Article
- Prognostic role of angiotensin-II receptor type 1 and endothelin-1 receptor type A agonistic autoantibodies in patients with acute myocardial infarction.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- Association of Angiotensin II Receptor Type 1 and Endothelin-1 Receptor Type A Agonistic Autoantibodies With Adverse Remodeling and Cardiovascular Events After Acute Myocardial Infarction.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Observational
- Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAngiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are considered an alternative to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but in the era of extensive use of preventive therapies and percutaneous coronary intervention, this has not been adequately evaluated in Asians.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study used data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. In total, 52,620 patients initially hospitalized due to AMI between 2002 and 2015 were assessed.
resultsAfter propensity score matching, 14,993 patients each were assigned to ACEI and ARB groups. Patients who received ARBs had significantly lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75-0.90) and hospitalization for heart failure (aHR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85-0.99) compared with those who received ACEIs at 18 month follow-up. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of major adverse cardiovascular events (aHR: 098; 95% CI: 0.90-1.07), cardiovascular death (aHR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-1.00), ischemia stroke (aHR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.77-1.11), and nonfatal myocardial infarction (aHR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93-1.17). ARBs showed benefits in many subgroups in terms of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death.
conclusionsReal-world data demonstrate that ARBs might be associated with lower all-cause mortality and hospitalization for heart failure compared with ACEIs among patients with AMI.
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.