GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: ESC Heart Failure, Wiley, Vol. 9, No. 3 ( 2022-06), p. 1801-1811
    Abstract: The effectiveness of angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE‐I) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) has not been demonstrated in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We recently reported significant interaction between the use of ACE‐I and/or ARB (ACE‐I/ARB) and frailty on prognosis in patients with HFpEF. In the present study, we examined the association between ACE‐I/ARB and prognosis in patients with HFpEF stratified by the presence or absence of frailty. Methods and results We examined the association between the use of ACE‐I/ARB and prognosis according to the presence [Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) ≥ 5] or absence (CFS ≤ 4) of frailty in patients with HFpEF in a post hoc analysis of registry data. Primary endpoint was the composite of all‐cause mortality and heart failure admission. Secondary endpoints were all‐cause mortality and heart failure admission. Of 1059 patients, median age was 83 years and 45% were male. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that the risk of composite endpoint (log‐rank P  = 0.001) and all‐cause death (log‐rank P  = 0.005) in patients with ACE‐I/ARB was lower in those with CFS ≥ 5, but similar between patients with and without ACE‐I/ARB in patients with CFS ≤ 4 (composite endpoint: log‐rank P  = 0.830; all‐cause death: log‐rank P  = 0.192). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, use of ACE‐I/ARB was significantly associated with lower risk of the composite endpoint [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.33–0.83, P  = 0.005] and heart failure admission (HR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.25–0.83, P  = 0.010) in patients with CFS ≥ 5, but not in patients with CFS ≤ 4 (composite endpoint: HR = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.99–2.02, P  = 0.059; heart failure admission: HR = 1.43, 95% CI = 0.94–2.18, P  = 0.091). The association between ACE‐I or ARB and prognosis did not significantly differ by CFS (CFS ≤ 4: log‐rank P  = 0.562; CFS ≥ 5: log‐rank P  = 0.100, for with ACE‐I vs. ARB, respectively). Adjusted HRs for CFS 1–4 were higher than 1.0 but were 〈 1.0 at CFS 5. Conclusions In patients with HFpEF, use of ACE‐I/ARB was associated with better prognosis in patients with frailty as assessed with the CFS, but not in those without frailty.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2055-5822 , 2055-5822
    URL: Issue
    Language: English
    Publisher: Wiley
    Publication Date: 2022
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2814355-3
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...