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 < or =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.
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 < or =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.
Authors: David M Leistner; Ulrich Fischer-Rasokat; Jörg Honold; Florian H Seeger; Volker Schächinger; Ralf Lehmann; Hans Martin; Iris Burck; Carmen Urbich; Stefanie Dimmeler; Andreas M Zeiher; Birgit Assmus Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-06-03 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: V Katsi; G Georgiopoulos; A Laina; E Koutli; J Parissis; C Tsioufis; P Nihoyannopoulos; D Tousoulis Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Kanan Patel; Gregg C Fonarow; Dalane W Kitzman; Inmaculada B Aban; Thomas E Love; Richard M Allman; Mihai Gheorghiade; Ali Ahmed Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Edith Pituskin; Mark Haykowsky; John R Mackey; Richard B Thompson; Justin Ezekowitz; Sheri Koshman; Gavin Oudit; Kelvin Chow; Joseph J Pagano; Ian Paterson Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Klaus K Witte; Rowena Byrom; John Gierula; Maria F Paton; Haqeel A Jamil; Judith E Lowry; Richard G Gillott; Sally A Barnes; Hemant Chumun; Lorraine C Kearney; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein; Graham R Law; Sue Pavitt; Julian H Barth; Richard M Cubbon; Mark T Kearney Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 24.094