4.7 Review

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: integrating evidence into clinical practice

Journal

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 33, Issue 22, Pages 2782-U18

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs257

Keywords

Heart failure; Aldosterone antagonist spironolactone; Mineralocorticoid receptors

Funding

  1. Association de Recherche et d'Information en Cardiologie (ARISC), in Nancy, France
  2. Pfizer
  3. Pfizer regarding eplerenone
  4. Forest Labs
  5. Amgen
  6. Novartis
  7. Bayer
  8. Roche
  9. Servier
  10. Sanofi-Aventis
  11. Astellas
  12. BRAHMS
  13. Federation Francaise de Cardiologie
  14. Bayer Healthcare AG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) improve survival and reduce morbidity in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction (HFREF), and mild-to-severe symptoms, and in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. These clinical benefits are observed in addition to those of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and beta-blockers. The morbidity and mortality benefits of MRAs may be mediated by several proposed actions, including antifibrotic mechanisms that slow heart failure progression, prevent or reverse cardiac remodelling, or reduce arrhythmogenesis. Both eplerenone and spironolactone have demonstrated survival benefits in individual clinical trials. Pharmacologic differences exist between the drugs, which may be relevant for therapeutic decision making in individual patients. Although serious hyperkalaemia events were reported in the major MRA clinical trials, these risks can be mitigated through appropriate patient selection, dose selection, patient education, monitoring, and follow-up. When used appropriately, MRAs significantly improve outcomes across the spectrum of patients with HFREF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available