4.4 Article

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker use is associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with critical limb ischemia

期刊

VASCULAR MEDICINE
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 237-244

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1358863X15574321

关键词

peripheral artery disease; critical limb ischemia; angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor; angiotensin receptor blocker; guideline therapies; adherence; prevention

资金

  1. WL Gore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended for secondary prevention in peripheral artery disease, but their effectiveness in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) is uncertain. We reviewed 464 patients with CLI who underwent diagnostic angiography or endovascular intervention from 2006-2013 at a multidisciplinary vascular center. ACEI or ARB use was assessed at the time of angiography. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), mortality, and major adverse limb events (MALE) were assessed during three-year follow-up. Propensity weighting was used to adjust for baseline differences between patients taking and not taking ACEIs or ARBs. ACEIs or ARBs were prescribed to 269 (58%) patients. Patients prescribed ACEIs or ARBs had more baseline comorbidities including diabetes and hypertension (p<0.05). Patients prescribed ACEIs or ARBs had lower three-year unadjusted rates of MACE (40% versus 47%) and mortality (33% versus 43%). After propensity weighting, ACEI or ARB use was associated with significantly lower rates of MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.99, p=0.04) and overall mortality (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.95, p=0.02). There was no significant association between ACEI or ARB use and MALE (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.69-1.35, p=0.2) or major amputation (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.47-1.18, p=0.1). ACEI/ARB use is associated with lower MACE and mortality in patients with CLI, but there was no effect on limb-related outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据