↓ Skip to main content

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers on cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers on cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12872-017-0686-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chenhui Tai, Tianyi Gan, Liling Zou, Yuxi Sun, Yi Zhang, Wei Chen, Jue Li, Jian Zhang, Yawei Xu, Huihe Lu, Dachun Xu

Abstract

Heart failure (HF) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Multiple trials over the past several years have examined the effects of both angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of left ventricular dysfunction, both acutely after myocardial infarction and in chronic heart failure. Yet, there is still confusion regarding the relative efficacy of rennin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition. Our study was conducted to assess efficacy of ACEIs and ARBs in reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in heart failure patients. We included randomized clinical trials compared ACEIs and ARBs treatment (any dose or type) with placebo treatment, no treatment, or other anti-HF drugs treatment, reporting cardiovascular or total mortality with an observation period of at least 12 months. Data sources included Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Dichotomous outcome data from individual trials were analyzed using the risk ratio measure and its 95%CI with random-effects/ fixed-effects models. We performed meta-regression analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity. All-cause mortality and CV mortality were thought to be the main outcomes. A total of 47,662 subjects were included with a mean/median follow-up ranged from 12 weeks to 4.5 years. Of all 38 studies, 32 compared ACEIs with control therapy (included 13 arms that compared ACEIs with placebo, 10 arms in which the comparator was active treatment and 9 arms that compared ACEIs with ARBs), and six studies compared ARBs with placebo. ACEIs treatment in patients with HF reduced all-cause mortality to 11% (risk ratio (RR): 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.83-0.96, p = 0.001) and the corresponding value for cardiovascular mortality was 14% (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.78-0.94, p = 0.001). However, ARBs had no beneficial effect on reducing all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. In head-to-head analysis, ACEIs was not superior to ARBs for all-cause mortality and cardiovascular deaths. In HF patients, ACEIs, but not ARBs reduced all-cause mortality and cardiovascular deaths. Thus, ACEIs should be considered as first-line therapy to limit excess mortality and morbidity in this population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 17%
Student > Master 17 12%
Other 11 8%
Researcher 9 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 4%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 56 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 63 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2023.
All research outputs
#3,653,822
of 25,378,799 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#159
of 1,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,979
of 329,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#4
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,378,799 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,926 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,465 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.