ARNI versus ACEI/ARB in Reducing Cardiovascular Outcomes after Myocardial Infarction.

Abstract

AimsThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of angiotensin receptor‐neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) therapy with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) therapy for cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Methods and resultsData were collected from the Biobank of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University between January 2016 and December 2020. A total of 7556 AMI patients were screened for eligibility. Propensity score matching based on age, sex, blood pressure, kidney function, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and cardiovascular medication were conducted, resulting in 291 patients with AMI being assigned to ARNI, ACEI, and ARB group, respectively. Patients receiving ARNI had significantly lower rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome than ACEI {hazard ratio [HR] 0.51, [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27–0.95], P = 0.02}, and ARB users [HR 0.47, (95%CI, 0.24–0.90), P = 0.02]. Patients receiving ARNI showed lower rates of cardiovascular death than ACEI [HR 0.37, (95%CI, 0.18–0.79), P = 0.01] and ARB users [HR 0.41, (95%CI, 0.18–0.95), P = 0.04]. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with LVEF no more than 40% tend to benefit more from ARNI as compared with ACEI [HR 0.30, (95%CI, 0.11–0.86), P = 0.01] or ARB [HR 0.21, (95%CI, 0.04–1.1), P = 0.05]. Patients aged no more than 60 years exhibited reduced composite endpoints [HR for ARNI vs. ARB: 0.11, (95%CI, 0.03–0.46), P = 0.002].ConclusionsIn patients with AMI, ARNI was superior to ACEI/ARB in reducing the long‐term adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Subgroup analysis further indicates that ARNI is more likely to benefit patients with LVEF less than 40% and aged less than 60 years.