Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Different ACE Inhibitors in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure
Authors:
- WeiPing SunWSWeiPing Sun
- HaiBin ZhangHZHaiBin Zhang
- JinCheng GuoJGJinCheng Guo
- XueKun ZhangXZXueKun Zhang
- LiXin ZhangLZLiXin Zhang
- ChunLei LiCLChunLei Li
- Ling ZhangLZLing Zhang
Open Access
- 1 February 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Medicine
- Vol. 95 (6) , e2554
Abstract
Heart failure is a public health problem and a great economic burden for patients and healthcare systems. Suppression of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors remains the mainstay of treatment for heart failure. However, the abundance of ACE inhibitors makes it difficult for doctors to choose.We performed this network meta-analysis of ACEIs in patients with heart failure in order to address this area of uncertainty.We searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Medline.Any randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of captopril, enalapril, lisinopril, ramipril, or trandolapril or combined interventions of 2 or more of these drugs.Two reviewers extracted the data and made the quality assessment. At first, we used Stata software (version 12.0, StataCorp, College Station, TX) to make traditional pairwise meta-analyses for studies that directly compared different interventions. Then, network meta-analysis was performed using WinBUGS (version 1.4.3, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK).A total of 29 studies were included. Lisinopril was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared with placebo (odds ratio 65.9, 95% credible interval 1.91 to 239.6) or ramipril (14.65, 1.23 to 49.5). Enalapril significantly reduced systolic blood pressure when compared with placebo (standardized mean differences -0.6, 95% credible interval -1.03 to -0.18). Both captopril (odds ratio 76.2, 95% credible interval 1.56 to 149.3) and enalapril (274.4, 2.4 to 512.9) were associated with a higher incidence of cough compared to placebo.Some important outcomes such as rehospitalization and cardiac death were not included. The sample size and the number of studies were limited, especially for ramipril.Our results suggest that enalapril might be the best option when considering factors such as increased ejection fraction, stroke volume, and decreased mean arterial pressure. However, enalapril was associated with the highest incidence of cough, gastrointestinal discomfort, and greater deterioration in renal function. Trandolapril ranked first in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Ramipril was associated with the lowest incidence of all-cause mortality. Lisinopril was the least effective in lowering systolic and diastolic blood pressure and was associated with the highest incidence of all-cause mortality.Keywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2Medical Decision Making, 2012
- ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2012European Journal of Heart Failure, 2012
- Aliskiren, ALTITUDE, and the Implications for ATMOSPHEREEuropean Journal of Heart Failure, 2012
- Epidemiology and risk profile of heart failureNature Reviews Cardiology, 2010
- A Randomized Double-Blind Trial of Enalapril in Older Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection FractionCirculation: Heart Failure, 2010
- Rehospitalizations among Patients in the Medicare Fee-for-Service ProgramNew England Journal of Medicine, 2009
- Clinical epidemiology of heart failureHeart, 2007
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ, 2003
- Comparison of Captopril and Enalapril in Patients with Severe Chronic Heart FailureNew England Journal of Medicine, 1986
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986