CLINICAL STUDIES
Clinical effects of early angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment for acute myocardial infarction are similar in the presence and absence of aspirin
Systematic overview of individual data from 96,712 randomized patients
Roberto Latini, MD*,
Gianni Tognoni, MD*,
Aldo P. Maggioni, MD*  ,
Colin Baigent, MB, BCh ,
Eugene Braunwald, MD ,
Zheng-Ming Chen, PhD,
Rory Collins, MB, BS,
Marcus Flather, MD||,
MariaGrazia Franzosi, PhD*,
John Kjekshus, MD¶,
Lars Køber, MD#,
Li-Sheng Liu, MD**,
Richard Peto, FRS,
Marc Pfeffer, MD,
Fabrizio Pizzetti, MD,
Eugenio Santoro, MSc*,
Peter Sleight, MD,
Karl Swedberg, MD,
Luigi Tavazzi, MD,
Wen Wang, MSc**,
Salim Yusuf, MD|||| on behalf of the Angiotensin-converting Enzyme Inhibitor Myocardial Infarction Collaborative Group1
* Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche "Mario Negri," Milano, Italy
Associazione Nazionale Medici-Cardiologi Ospedalieri, Firenze, Italy
Clinical Trial Service Unit, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, United Kingdom
Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
|| Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom
¶ The National Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
# Gentofte Hospital/University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark
** Fu Wai Hospital, Beijing, China
Santo Spirito Hospital, Casale Monferrato (AL), Italy
Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
Policlinico S. Matteo, Pavia, Italy
|||| McMaster Clinic, Hamilton General Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Manuscript received November 16, 1998;
revised manuscript received December 16, 1999,
accepted February 9, 2000.
Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Roberto Latini, Department of Cardiovascular Research, Istituto Mario Negri, Via Eritrea, 62, 20157 Milano, Italy
latini{at}irfmn.mnegri.it
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
OBJECTIVES
We sought to determine whether the clinical effects of early angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor (ACEi) treatment for acute myocardial infarction (MI) are influenced by the concomitant use of aspirin (ASA).
BACKGROUND
Aspirin and ACEi both reduce mortality when given early after MI. Aspirin inhibits the synthesis of vasodilating prostaglandins, and, in principle, this inhibition might antagonize some of the effects of ACEi. But it is uncertain whether, in practice, this influences the effects of ACEi on mortality and major morbidity after MI.
METHODS
This overview sought individual patient data from all trials involving more than 1,000 patients randomly allocated to receive ACEi or control starting in the acute phase of MI (0–36 h from onset) and continuing for four to six weeks. Data on concomitant ASA use were available for 96,712 of 98,496 patients in four eligible trials (and for none of 1,556 patients in the one other eligible trial).
RESULTS
Overall 30-day mortality was 7.1% among patients allocated to ACEi and 7.6% among those allocated to control, corresponding to a 7% (standard deviation [SD], 2%) proportional reduction (95% confidence interval 2% to 11%, p = 0.004). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor was associated with similar proportional reductions in 30-day mortality among the 86,484 patients who were taking ASA (6% [SD, 3%] reduction) and among the 10,228 patients who were not (10% [SD, 5%] reduction: chi-squared test of heterogeneity between these reductions = 0.4; p = 0.5). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor produced definite increases in the incidence of persistent hypotension (17.9% ACEi vs. 9.4% control) and of renal dysfunction (1.3% ACEi vs. 0.6% control), but there was no good evidence that these effects were different in the presence or absence of ASA (chi-squared for heterogeneity = 0.4 and 0.0, respectively; both not significant). Nor was there good evidence that the effects of ACEi on other clinical outcomes were changed by concomitant ASA use.
CONCLUSIONS
Both ASA and ACEi are beneficial in acute MI. The present results support the early use of ACEi in acute MI, irrespective of whether or not ASA is being given.
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | ACE | = angiotensin-converting enzyme | | ACEi | = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor | | ASA | = aspirin | | CCS | = Chinese Cardiac Study | | CONSENSUS | = Cooperative New Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study | | GISSI | = Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico | | ISIS | = International Study of Infarct Survival | | MI | = myocardial infarction | | SD | = standard deviation | | SOLVD | = Studies Of Left Ventricular Dysfunction |
|
Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (ACEi) have been shown to improve prognosis not only when started some time after myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with evidence of left ventricular dysfunction (1–3) but also when given during the acute phase of MI in relatively unselected patients (4–8). Overall, in a recently published overview of the large-scale randomized trials, early ACEi treatment of acute MI produced a small but highly significant 7% (standard deviation [SD], 2%) proportional reduction (2 p < 0.004) in 30-day mortality, which corresponded to avoidance of an average of five deaths per 1,000 patients treated for one month (9). Aspirin (ASA), which is an inhibitor of platelet cyclo-oxygenase and prostaglandin synthesis, produces a much larger (27% [SD, 3%]) proportional decrease in mortality or major morbidity in this setting (10,11) and has, for some years, been used widely.
One of the most prominent pharmacologic actions of ACEi is to decrease arterial pressure, and this seems to be mediated not only by a reduction in angiotensin II production but also by an increase in bradykinin (12) and in the vasodilating prostaglandins I2 and E2 (13,14). The absence of a reflex increase in heart rate when blood pressure is lowered with ACEi may be partly attributable to the increased production of prostaglandins (15) and the increase in baroreflex gain resulting from lowered levels of angiotensin II in the central nervous system (16), and at least the first of these two effects might be inhibited by ASA. Moreover, ACEi treatment has been associated with depression of renal function, and it has been suggested that ASA might potentiate this unwanted action of ACEi by decreasing renal vasodilatory prostaglandin synthesis and increasing sodium and water retention (17).
It has been claimed that ASA reduces the blood pressure lowering effect of ACEi (18) and the short-term beneficial hemodynamic effects of ACEi in heart failure patients (19–21), although the latter findings were not confirmed by another study (17). A retrospective subanalysis of about 7,000 patients with left ventricular dysfunction in the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD) trials showed a trend toward less benefit with ACEi in patients using antiplatelet agents at baseline (published only as an abstract [22]), but, again, these findings have not been confirmed by other long-term trials of ACEi.
In the context of acute MI, a preliminary analysis of 19,000 patients in the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvienza nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI)-3 trial did not indicate any impact of ASA on the clinical effects of ACEi, whereas analyses of 6,000 in the Cooperative New Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS) II trial did indicate a nonsignificant interaction (23). More recently, a post-hoc analysis of the few (298) acute MI patients enrolled in the Captopril And Thrombolysis Study trial did not suggest that ASA attenuated the acute and long-term beneficial effects of ACEi on left ventricular function (24).
To help determine more reliably whether the effects of ACEi on mortality, or on other clinical outcomes, are materially altered by the use of concomitant ASA, we have analyzed the data on nearly 97,000 patients in the overview of the large trials of early ACEi treatment in acute MI.
|
Methods
|
|---|
The overview was to include individual patient data from all randomized trials involving more than 1,000 patients in which ACEi treatment was started in the acute phase of MI (0 to 36 h from symptom onset) and continued for a short period of time (generally four to six weeks). Individual data were available for 98,496 patients from four such trials (Chinese Cardiac Study [CCS]-1 [4], CONSENSUS II [5], GISSI-3 [6] and International Study of Infarct Survival [ISIS]-4 [7]) but not for 1,556 patients in the one other eligible trial Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (3). The methods and main results of this overview have been presented in detail elsewhere (9). Information on ASA or other antiplatelet use (yes/no) at randomization was available for 96,712 of these patients, on which the present analyses are based: 86,484 were receiving antiplatelet therapy and 10,228 were not. The Chinese Cardiac Study-1 recorded the use of ASA alone, whereas the other three trials recorded ASA plus other antiplatelet agents, but it is reasonable to assume that the use of antiplatelets other than ASA early after MI was very low. Hence, for the purposes of these analyses, antiplatelet use is considered to be synonymous with ASA use. Information on ASA dose received by each patient was not available, although the protocol for CCS-1 recommended 160 mg daily.
Statistical methods.
The primary analyses were of the effects of ACEi on total mortality and were recorded up to day 30. Secondary analyses were of mortality from day 0 to day 7 and of other clinical events (persistent hypotension, renal dysfunction, stroke, reinfarction and nonfatal heart failure) up to day 30. Only the first occurrence of each adverse event was recorded, so the analyses are of the number of patients with at least one such event. The analyses were conducted with SAS software. Chi-squared tests were used to compare patients’ baseline characteristics. For the survival analyses, the Kaplan-Meier method was used and the p value was calculated by the log-rank test. All such p values are two sided. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate stratified estimates of the proportional effects (odds ratios and percent reductions in odds) of ACEi, and comparisons of these effects in the presence and absence of ASA involved chi-squared tests for heterogeneity.
|
Results
|
|---|
The prevalence of ASA use at entry was very different in the four studies (Table 1), ranging from 75% in CCS-1 to 94% in ISIS-4. Patients not receiving ASA at entry were older than those who were receiving ASA (Table 2) and also differed in terms of gender, previous history of MI, severity of MI, use of thrombolytics and use of beta-adrenergic blocking agents (Table 2).
Effects of ACEi on mortality.
Overall, 30-day mortality was 7.1% among patients allocated to ACEi and 7.6% among those allocated to control, corresponding to a 7% (SD, 2%) proportional reduction (95% confidence interval 2% to 11%; 2 p < 0.004: Fig. 1). No significant difference was observed between the proportional effects of ACEi on mortality in the four studies. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor was associated with similar proportional reductions in 30-day mortality among the 86,484 patients who were taking ASA (6% [SD, 3%] reduction) and among the 10,228 who were not (10% [SD, 5%] reduction: chi-squared for heterogeneity on one degree of freedom = 0.4; p = 0.5: Fig. 1 and 2).
View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 Proportional effect of ACEi therapy on 30-day mortality in the presence and absence of concomitant ASA. The odds ratio for each trial is represented by a square (area proportional to number of patients with an event), with 99% CI (horizontal line). The overall results for the trials and their 95% CI are represented by diamonds. ACEi = angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ASA = aspirin; CI = confidence intervals.
|
|
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 Randomized comparison of ACEi versus no-ACEi on 30-day mortality in (poor-average prognosis) patients who were not given ASA and in (good-average prognosis) patients who were given ASA. Note that although ASA must have been responsible for some benefit, differences in prognosis between patients may well be responsible for more than half of the difference in outcome between ASA and no-ASA in this Figure.
|
|
Likewise, the overall proportional reduction in seven-day mortality with ACEi of 9% (SD, 3%) (p = 0.002), the so called "early benefit" (9), was not significantly different in the presence of ASA (7% [SD, 3%] reduction) or in its absence (15% [SD, 6%] reduction: chi-squared for heterogeneity = 1.3; p = 0.3).
Effects of ACEi on other clinical events.
Overall, ACEi doubled the incidence of persistent hypotension and renal dysfunction (Fig. 3A), but there was no suggestion that the effects of ACEi on these outcomes were different in the presence and absence of ASA: chi-squared for heterogeneity = 0.4 for persistent hypotension (p = 0.5) and 0.0 for renal dysfunction (p = 0.9).
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3 (A) Effects of ACEi therapy on 30-day incidence of persistent hypotension and renal dysfunction in the presence and absence of concomitant ASA. (B) Effects of ACEi therapy on 30-day incidence of heart failure, reinfarction and stroke in the presence and absence of concomitant ASA. *Percentages for heart failure are of patients surviving at day 30; **CONSENSUS-II patients are excluded from this analysis because data on stroke were not available.
|
|
Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor reduced the incidence of nonfatal heart failure, but, again, the proportional effect among patients receiving ASA was not significantly different from that among those who were not receiving ASA (chi-squared for heterogeneity on 1 df = 1.3: p = 0.3). The 30-day reinfarction rate was not affected by ACEi among those receiving ASA and among those who were not. Nor was the overall 30-day stroke rate significantly affected by ACEi (1.02% ACEi vs. 0.95% control), and, although there appeared to be a trend towards slightly more strokes with ACEi in the presence of ASA (1.0% ACEi vs. 0.8% control) and slightly fewer in the absence of ASA (1.5% ACEi vs. 2.0% control), there was no good evidence of an effect of ACEi on stroke in either circumstance. In general, the effects of ACEi on all of the clinical events examined were not shown to be influenced by ASA (global chi-squared for heterogeneity between all subgroups in Fig. 1 and 3 = 8.2: p = 0.2 with 6 df).
|
Discussion
|
|---|
Mortality.
This study indicates that, in terms of the proportional reduction in 30-day mortality after hospital admission for acute MI, the benefits of ASA and the benefits of ACEi are approximately independent of each other, in which case the greater benefit will be obtained by using both treatments. In particular, Figure 1 shows that the hypothesis, generated by subgroup analyses of one particular study (23) that ACEi would be ineffective in ASA-treated patients, is refuted by the other studies in this meta-analysis, which collectively include much larger numbers of patients.
Other clinical events.
Moreover, ASA does not significantly modify the safety profile of early ACEi. In particular, the results obtained on renal dysfunction, which is a serious, although infrequent, complication of ACEi treatment, show that even in that target organ no clinically relevant interaction between ACEi and ASA occurs. The large number of patients, hospitals and countries involved in these trials strongly suggests that there are no clinically important interactions between ACEi and ASA in a range of settings during the first month after acute MI. The apparently contrasting effects of ACEi on stroke in the presence and absence of ASA should not be overemphasized, and, considering the large number of comparisons done, might well be due merely to the play of chance, especially since there appears to be no clear rationale for such an interaction.
If we apply power calculations to the clinical event with the lowest incidence, renal dysfunction, an increase in odds ratio for renal dysfunction in ASA group from 1.93 (ACEi vs. control) to 3, could be arbitrarily chosen as clinically relevant. This means an increase from 1.3% (Fig. 3A) to 1.8% in the incidence of renal dysfunction in patients taking both ACEi and ASA (n = 43,174) or an absolute increase of 0.5%, corresponding to a 35% relative increase. Application of power calculations yields a value of 1-beta = 0.99 with an alpha = 0.01 (a subgroup analysis being performed). The power for other events with higher incidence will necessarily be >0.99. These considerations on statistical power should help in critically interpreting previous claims on the existence or nonexistence of an interaction between ASA and ACEi, based on analyses of smaller populations of patients (19–21,23–25).
ASA schedules.
Although the available data did not allow us to determine directly various aspects of the ASA treatment (such as dose, time of initiation, duration), we can reasonably assume, based on recommendations in the protocols of at least two of the largest studies (6,7) that ASA began as soon as possible after the onset of symptoms, and its use was recorded within 36 h of onset before randomization of ACEi. Moreover, although only CCS-1 specified the ASA dose (160 mg daily), it is likely that the doses of ASA used in other studies were also generally in the range of 160 to 325 mg daily (10,11). Antiplatelet agents other than ASA were likely to have been used relatively infrequently; indeed, in GISSI-3 they were used in only 4% of patients during hospitalization, whereas 89% used ASA. Therefore, it can reasonably be assumed that the use of non-ASA antiplatelet agents is unlikely to have distorted the present analyses to any material extent. It can also be assumed that ASA was continued upon discharge in most patients; for example, in GISSI-3 78% of those on ASA at entry were still on ASA when discharged alive from the hospital.
ASA use in good and in poor prognosis patients.
The lower mortality and lower rate of some other adverse events in patients receiving ASA must, to some extent, reflect the benefits of ASA (10). But it also reflects the fact that, on average, the patients not receiving ASA were older and more severely ill, and, therefore, had a worse prognosis than those who were receiving ASA (26). It is unclear why a drug like ASA, which is easy to administer, safe and of proven benefit during and after MI (10,11) should not be offered to almost all patients, especially those presenting with a poor prognosis. Perhaps this reflected previous attitudes to ASA use in older individuals (with undue concerns about adverse effects), since even at discharge ASA use appeared to be slightly less in older patients (for example, in GISSI-3 it was given to 88% of those aged  65 years compared with 91% of those aged <65 years).
Conclusions.
The present analyses of clinical outcomes among nearly 97,000 MI patients show that ACEi are safe and moderately effective when given early after MI, irrespective of whether (as will normally be the case nowadays) ASA is also being given. Likewise, despite the suggestion of an interaction with ASA in SOLVD (22), consideration together of all large trials of long-term ACEi in MI patients with signs or symptoms of left ventricular dysfunction (1–3) shows that ACEi is of additional value even in patients who are being given ASA.
Guidelines suggesting a possible negative interaction between ASA and ACEi in the setting of MI now need to be reconsidered.
|
Appendix
|
|---|
The ACE inhibitor myocardial infarction collaborative group.
Steering Committee (early and late trials): GISSI-3: L. Tavazzi, G. Tognoni. ISIS-4: R. Collins, C. Baigent, M. Flather, R. Peto, P. Sleight. CCS-1: Z-M. Chen, L-S. Liu, W. Wang. CONSENSUS II: J. Kjekshus, K. Swedberg. AIRE: S. Ball. TRACE: L. Køber, C. Torp-Pedersen. SAVE: E. Braunwald, L. Moyé, M. Pfeffer. SOLVD: S. Yusuf.
Coordinating Centers: Early trials: Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico (GISSI): M.G. Franzosi, R. Latini, A.P. Maggioni, E. Santoro, L. Santoro, G. Zuanetti. Late trials: Canadian Cardiovascular Collaboration (CCC), McMaster Clinic: M. Flather, J. Pogue, Y. Wang, S. Yusuf.
|
Acknowledgments
|
|---|
We thank Luisa Galbiati for the invaluable secretarial support in communications within the Collaborative Group and in manuscript preparation.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
In addition to the support listed in the trial publications, the work on this project in Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri was partially funded by a Canadian Medical Research Council joint industry award with Astra, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Merck and Zeneca; in the Clinical Trial, Service Unit was funded by the British Heart Foundation and the UK Medical Research Council.
1 The participants are listed in the Appendix. 
|
References
|
|---|
1. SAVE InvestigatorsPfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moyé LA, et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction: results of the Survival and Ventricular Enlargement Trial (SAVE). N Engl J Med. 1992;327:669–677[Abstract]
2. Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) Study Investigators. Effect of ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivors of acute myocardial infarction with clinical evidence of heart failure. Lancet. 1993;342:821–828[Medline]
3. TRAndolapril Cardiac Evaluation (TRACE) Study GroupKober L, Torp-Pedersen C, Carlsen JE, et al. A clinical trial of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor trandolapril in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1670–1676[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Chinese Cardiac Study Collaborative Group. Oral captopril versus placebo among 13,634 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction: interim report from the Chinese Cardiac Study (CCS-1). Lancet. 1995;345:686–687[Medline]
5. CONSENSUS II Study GroupSwedberg K, Held P, Kjekshus J, Rasmussen K, Rydén L, Wedel H. Effects of the early administration of enalapril on mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:678–684[Abstract]
6. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell’Infarto Miocardico. GISSI-3: effects of lisinopril and transdermal glyceryl trinitrate singly and together on six-week mortality and ventricular function after acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1994;343:1115–1122[Medline]
7. ISIS-4 Collaborative Group. ISIS-4: a randomized factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 1995;345:669–685[CrossRef][Medline]
8. Survival of Myocardial Infarction Long-term Evaluation (SMILE) Study InvestigatorsAmbrosioni E, Borghi C, Magnani B. The effect of the angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor zofenopril on mortality and morbidity after anterior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:80–85[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. ACE Inhibitor Myocardial Infarction Collaborative Group. Indications for ACE inhibitors in early treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Systematic overview of individual data from 100,000 patients in randomized trials. Circulation. 1998;97:2202–2212[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomized trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet. 1988;ii:349–360
11. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative overview of randomized trials of antiplatelet therapy. I: Prevention of death, myocardial infarction and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. Br Med J. 1994;308:81–106[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Blais C, Drapeau G, Raymond P, et al. Contribution of angiotensin-converting enzyme to the cardiac metabolism of bradykinin: an interspecies study. Am J Physiol. 1997;273:H2263–H2271
13. Swartz SL, Williams GH, Hollenberg NK, Levine L, Dluhy RG, Moore TJ. Captopril-induced changes in prostaglandin production. Relationship to vascular responses in normal man. J Clin Invest. 1980;65:1257–1264[Medline]
14. Packer M. Interaction of prostaglandins and angiotensin II in the modulation of renal function in congestive heart failure. Circulation. 1988;77(Suppl I):I64–I73
15. Zucker IH, Chen J-S, Wang W. Renal sympathetic nerve and hemodynamic responses to captopril in conscious dogs: role of prostaglandins. Am J Physiol. 1991;260:H260–H266[Medline]
16. Heesch CM, Crandall E, Turbek JA. Converting enzyme inhibitors cause pressure-independent resetting of baroreflex control of sympathetic outflow. Am J Physiol. 1996;270:R728–R737
17. Sturrock NDC, Struthers AD. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors: a commonly prescribed combination with variable effects on renal function. Br J Clin Pharmac. 1993;35:343–348[Medline]
18. Brooks PM, Day RO. Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs—differences and similarities. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1716–1725[Medline]
19. Hall D, Zeitler H, Rudolph W. Counteraction of the vasodilator effects of enalapril by aspirin in severe heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;20:1549–1555[Abstract]
20. Spaulding C, Charbonnier B, Cohen-Solal A, et al. Acute hemodynamic interaction of aspirin and ticlopidine with enalapril. Circulation. 1998;98:757–765[Abstract/Free Full Text]
21. Baur LHB, Schipperheyn JJ, van der Laarse A, et al. Combining salicylate and enalapril in patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure. Br Heart J. 1995;73:227–236[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. SOLVD InvestigatorsPitt B, Yusuf S. Studies of left ventricular dysfunction (SOLVD): subgroup results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1992;19:215A
23. Nguyen KN, Aursnes I, Kjekshus J. Interaction between enalapril and aspirin on mortality after acute myocardial infarction: subgroup analysis of the Cooperative New Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study II (CONSENSUS II). Am J Cardiol. 1997;79:115–119[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Oosterga M, Anthonio RL, de Kam P-J, Kingma JH, Crijns HJGM, van Gilst WH. Effects of aspirin on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition and left ventricular dilation one year after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81:1178–1181[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Leor J, Riecher-Reiss H, Goldbrourt U, et al. Aspirin and mortality in patients treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. A cohort study of 11,575 patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999;33:1920–1925[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Krumholz HM, Radford MJ, Ellerbeck EF, et al. Aspirin in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction in elderly Medicare beneficiaries: patterns of use and outcomes. Circulation. 1995;92:2841–2847[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
C. Patrono, C. Baigent, J. Hirsh, and G. Roth
Antiplatelet Drugs: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)
Chest,
June 1, 2008;
133(6_suppl):
199S - 233S.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Goyal, J. H. Alexander, G. E. Hafley, S. H. Graham, R. H. Mehta, M. J. Mack, R. K. Wolf, L. H. Cohn, N. T. Kouchoukos, R. A. Harrington, et al.
Outcomes Associated With the Use of Secondary Prevention Medications After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
March 1, 2007;
83(3):
993 - 1001.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Nakashima, T. Katayama, C. Takagi, K. Amenomori, M. Ishizaki, Y. Honda, and S. Suzuki
Obstructive sleep apnoea inhibits the recovery of left ventricular function in patients with acute myocardial infarction
Eur. Heart J.,
October 1, 2006;
27(19):
2317 - 2322.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Jhund and J. J.V. McMurray
Does Aspirin Reduce the Benefit of an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor?: Choosing Between the Scylla of Observational Studies and the Charybdis of Subgroup Analysis
Circulation,
June 6, 2006;
113(22):
2566 - 2568.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. A. McAlister, W. A. Ghali, Y. Gong, J. Fang, P. W. Armstrong, and J. V. Tu
Aspirin Use and Outcomes in a Community-Based Cohort of 7352 Patients Discharged After First Hospitalization for Heart Failure
Circulation,
June 6, 2006;
113(22):
2572 - 2578.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 8: Stabilization of the Patient With Acute Coronary Syndromes
Circulation,
December 13, 2005;
112(24_suppl):
IV-89 - IV-110.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Gemmell, R F Heller, P McElduff, K Payne, G Butler, R Edwards, M Roland, and P Durrington
Population impact of stricter adherence to recommendations for pharmacological and lifestyle interventions over one year in patients with coronary heart disease
J Epidemiol Community Health,
December 1, 2005;
59(12):
1041 - 1046.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Patrono, L. A. Garcia Rodriguez, R. Landolfi, and C. Baigent
Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of atherothrombosis.
N. Engl. J. Med.,
December 1, 2005;
353(22):
2373 - 2383.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Part 5: Acute Coronary Syndromes
Circulation,
November 29, 2005;
112(22_suppl):
III-55 - III-72.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K.A. Chacko
Cardiac Medical Therapy Following Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
September 6, 2005;
46(5):
934 - 934.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. C Simmonds, J. P T Higginsa, L. A Stewartb, J. F Tierneyb, M. J Clarke, and S. G Thompson
Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice
Clinical Trials,
June 1, 2005;
2(3):
209 - 217.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R Weir and J J V McMurray
Treatments that improve outcome in the patient with heart failure, left ventricular systolic dysfunction, or both after acute myocardial infarction
Heart,
May 1, 2005;
91(suppl_2):
ii17 - ii20.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care, Authors/Task Force Members, M. S. Nieminen, M. Bohm, M. R. Cowie, H. Drexler, G. S. Filippatos, G. Jondeau, Y. Hasin, J. Lopez-Sendon, et al.
Executive summary of the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of acute heart failure: The Task Force on Acute Heart Failure of the European Society of Cardiology
Eur. Heart J.,
February 2, 2005;
26(4):
384 - 416.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J.V. McMurray, M. A. Pfeffer, K. Swedberg, and V. J. Dzau
Which Inhibitor of the Renin-Angiotensin System Should Be Used in Chronic Heart Failure and Acute Myocardial Infarction?
Circulation,
November 16, 2004;
110(20):
3281 - 3288.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Patrono, B. Coller, G. A. FitzGerald, J. Hirsh, and G. Roth
Platelet-Active Drugs: The Relationships Among Dose, Effectiveness, and Side Effects: The Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy
Chest,
September 1, 2004;
126(3_suppl):
234S - 264S.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Sacco, F. Pellegrini, M. C. Roncaglioni, F. Avanzini, G. Tognoni, and A. Nicolucci
Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events With Low-Dose Aspirin and Vitamin E in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: Results of the Primary Prevention Project (PPP) trial
Diabetes Care,
December 1, 2003;
26(12):
3264 - 3272.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. P. Brunner-La Rocca
Interaction of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibition and Aspirin in Congestive Heart Failure: Long Controversy Finally Resolved?
Chest,
October 1, 2003;
124(4):
1192 - 1194.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Aumegeat, N. Lamblin, P. de Groote, E. P. Mc Fadden, A. Millaire, C. Bauters, and J.-M. Lablanche
Aspirin Does Not Adversely Affect Survival in Patients With Stable Congestive Heart Failure Treated With Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors
Chest,
October 1, 2003;
124(4):
1250 - 1258.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Meune, J.-J. Mourad, J.-F. Bergmann, and C. Spaulding
Interaction between cyclooxygenase and the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system: rationale and clinical relevance
Journal of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System,
September 1, 2003;
4(3):
149 - 154.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. J. Velazquez, M. A. Pfeffer, J. V. McMurray, A. P. Maggioni, J.-L. Rouleau, F. Van de Werf, L. Kober, H. D. White, K. Swedberg, J. D. Leimberger, et al.
VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion (VALIANT) trial: baseline characteristics in context
Eur J Heart Fail,
August 1, 2003;
5(4):
537 - 544.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Guazzi, R. Brambilla, G. Reina, G. Tumminello, and M. D. Guazzi
Aspirin-Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Coadministration and Mortality in Patients With Heart Failure: A Dose-Related Adverse Effect of Aspirin
Arch Intern Med,
July 14, 2003;
163(13):
1574 - 1579.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Lapointe, Q. T. Nguyen, J.-F. Desjardins, F. Marcotte, A. Pourdjabbar, G. Moe, A. Calderone, and J.-L. Rouleau
Effects of pre-, peri-, and postmyocardial infarction treatment with omapatrilat in rats: survival, arrhythmias, ventricular function, and remodeling
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol,
June 5, 2003;
285(1):
H398 - H405.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B.-q. Zhu, R. E Sievers, A. E. Browne, R. J Lee, K. Chatterjee, W. Grossman, J. S Karliner, and W. W Parmley
Comparative effects of aspirin with ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker on myocardial infarction and vascular function
Journal of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System,
March 1, 2003;
4(1):
31 - 37.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Dubey, D K Balani, and K K Pillai
Potential adverse interaction between aspirin and Lisinopril in hypertensive rats
Human and Experimental Toxicology,
March 1, 2003;
22(3):
143 - 147.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. C. Lau, L. A. Waskell, P. B. Watkins, C. J. Neer, K. Horowitz, A. S. Hopp, A. R. Tait, D. G.M. Carville, K. E. Guyer, and E. R. Bates
Atorvastatin Reduces the Ability of Clopidogrel to Inhibit Platelet Aggregation: A New Drug-Drug Interaction
Circulation,
January 7, 2003;
107(1):
32 - 37.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. M. Califf and D. L. DeMets
Principles From Clinical Trials Relevant to Clinical Practice: Part I
Circulation,
August 20, 2002;
106(8):
1015 - 1021.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Lauer
Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Coronary Events
N. Engl. J. Med.,
May 9, 2002;
346(19):
1468 - 1474.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. McMurray and M. A. Pfeffer
New Therapeutic Options in Congestive Heart Failure: Part II
Circulation,
May 7, 2002;
105(18):
2223 - 2228.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. L. Lazar, Y. Bao, S. Rivers, and S. A. Bernard
Pretreatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuates ischemia-reperfusion injury
Ann. Thorac. Surg.,
May 1, 2002;
73(5):
1522 - 1527.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Lindenfeld, A. D. Robertson, B. D. Lowes, M. R. Bristow, and for the MOCHA Investigators
Aspirin impairs reverse myocardial remodeling in patients with heart failure treated with beta-blockers
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
December 1, 2001;
38(7):
1950 - 1956.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Baigent, R. Collins, and R. Peto
Benefit of aspirin plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
April 1, 2001;
37(5):
1474 - 1475.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Hall
Benefit of aspirin plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: reply
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
April 1, 2001;
37(5):
1475 - 1475.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. H. O'Keefe, M. Wetzel, R. R. Moe, K. Brosnahan, and C. J. Lavie
Should an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor be standard therapy for patients with atherosclerotic disease?
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
January 1, 2001;
37(1):
1 - 8.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Patrono, B. Coller, J. E. Dalen, G. A. FitzGerald, V. Fuster, M. Gent, J. Hirsh, and G. Roth
Platelet-Active Drugs : The Relationships Among Dose, Effectiveness, and Side Effects
Chest,
January 1, 2001;
119
(2009):
39S - 63S.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Hall
The aspirin-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor tradeoff: to halve and halve not
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.,
June 1, 2000;
35(7):
1808 - 1812.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods