4.5 Review

A systematic review: Effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition on left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction in patients with a myocardial infarction and in patients with left ventricular dysfunction

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 129-135

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2006.05.002

关键词

angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor; remodelling; diastolic and systolic volume; ejection fraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aim: To summarize and quantify results of echocardiographic studies examining the effect of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibition on left ventricular remodelling in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Methods: Systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of eligible studies providing data on end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were performed. Results: Data from 16 eligible studies were meta-analysed. The results of studies including patients with MI and preserved LVEF (> 45%) showed no significant benefit of ACE inhibition. Results of studies/subgroups with mean LVEF < 45% demonstrated significant differences in diastolic and systolic volumes of 3.0 (0.1, 6.0) ml and 2.25 (0.04, 4.4) ml in short-term (4-14 weeks) follow-up in favour of ACE inhibitor, p = 0.041 and p = 0.046 respectively. In the long-term (6-12 months) follow-up, the differences in diastolic and systolic volumes were 4.2 (0.98, 7.4) ml and 3.3 (0.9, 5.8) ml in favour of ACE inhibitor, p = 0.01 and p = 0.007 respectively. LVEF improved in both short and long-term follow-up, p = 0.034 and p = 0.021, respectively. Conclusion: Chronic use of ACE inhibition has a small but sustained and beneficial effect on remodelling in patients with myocardial infarction and patients with chronic left ventricular dysfunction. (c) 2006 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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