Epistemonikos summaries

← vista completa

Are angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin 2 receptor antagonists effective in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction?

¿Son efectivos los inhibidores de enzima convertidora o los antagonistas del receptor de angiotensina 2 en pacientes con insuficiencia cardiaca y fracción de eyección conservada?

Abstract

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) constitute first line treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, their role in patients with preserved ejection fraction remains controversial. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified five systematic reviews including five randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded ACEI and ARB do not decrease mortality or hospitalization risk in this group of patients.

Problem

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers slow progression of disease and mortality in patients with heart failure and low ejection fraction. The effect on cardiac remodeling is considered the main mechanism of action, and it is also present in patients with preserved ejection fraction, so this benefit might extend to this group too.

Methods

We used Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening more than 30 databases, to identify systematic reviews and their included primary studies.

With this information we generated a structured summary using a pre-established format, which includes key messages, a summary of the body of evidence (presented as an evidence matrix in Epistemonikos), meta-analysis of the total of studies, a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach and a table of other considerations for decision-making.

Key Messages

  • Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers do not decrease mortality or hospitalization risk in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.
  • The conclusions of this summary are in agreement with the individual systematic reviews identified and with the recommendations provided in the main guidelines.

About the body of evidence for this question

What is the evidence.

See evidence matrix  in Epistemonikos later


We found five systematic reviews [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] summarising 12 studies [6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16], including five randomised controlled trials [6],[9],[14],[15],[16]. This table and the summary in general are based on the latter.

What types of patients were included


Two studies included patients older than 18 years [14],[16] but the average age was 67 and 73. The other three studies included patients older than 60 [9], 65 [16] and 70 years [6].

All studies considered heart failure of any etiology. Ejection fraction was >40% in three studies [6],[15],[16] and > 45% in two [9],[14].

What types of interventions were included


Two studies evaluated the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors perindopril [6] and quinapril [16], and two the angiotensin receptor blockers irbesartan [9] and candesartán [15] One study [14] included one arm with each drug class (irbesartán y ramipril).

All studies compared against placebo or standard treatment, which generally included diuretics.

What types of outcomes were measured


Total mortality or cardiovascular mortality; total and cardiac cause hospitalization; quality of life; walk tests; echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters..

Summary of findings

The information on the effects of ACEI or ARB is based on five randomized trials [6],[9],[14],[15],[16] including 8226 patients. All studies reported total mortality and only three reported hospitalization by any cause [9],[15],[16].

  • Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers do not decrease mortality or hospitalization risk in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction. The certainty of the evidence is high.

Renin-angiotensin system blockade in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Other considerations for decision-making

To whom this evidence does and does not apply

  • Studies did include patients with heart failure independent of etiology, did select an inclusive definition of preserved ejection fraction (>40%) and did not have important exclusion criteria, so the evidence can be applied to the totality of patients with this condition.
  • There might be an underrepresented subgroup that can benefit from these interventions such  as those with severe diastolic heart failure. However, there is no indication of such an effect in the identified sources.
 About the outcomes included in this summary
  • The outcomes presented in this summary are those considered as critical for decision-making. None of the systematic reviews found benefit on other outcomes.
 Balance between benefits and risks, and certainty of the evidence
  • It is a low risk intervention, but with high certainty does not provide any benefit.
 Resource considerations
  • It is a low cost intervention, but given its lack of benefit, the cost/benefit ratio is not favourable.

Differences between this summary and other sources

  • The conclusion of this summary is in agreement with the individual systematic reviews identified [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] and with the main guideliness [17],[18],[19],[20].
 Could this evidence change in the future?
  • The probability of this evidence to change in the future is very low, because of the certainty of the evidence.
  • We did not identify ongoing studies, so it is unlikely that new evidence relevant for this question would appear in the future.

How we conducted this summary

Using automated and collaborative means, we compiled all the relevant evidence for the question of interest and we present it as a matrix of evidence.

;;;;Matrix of evidence
Full size

Follow the link to access the interactive version Renin-angiotensin system blockade in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction


Notes

The upper portion of the matrix of evidence will display a warning of “new evidence” if new systematic reviews are published after the publication of this summary.

Even though the project considers the periodical update of these summaries, users are invited to comment in the website of Medwave or to contact the authors through email if they realize there is new evidence and the summary should be updated earlier.

After creating an account in Epistemonikos, users will be able to save the matrixes and to receive automated notifications any time new evidence potentially relevant for the question appears.

The details about the methods used to produce this summaries are described here http://dx.doi.org/10.5867/medwave.2014.06.5997.

Epistemonikos foundation is a non-for-profit organisation aiming to bring information closer to those making health decisions, through the use of technology. Its main development is Epistemonikos database (www.epistemonikos.org).

These summaries follow a rigorous process of internal peer review.