BACKGROUND/AIMS: This meta-analysis compared the effects of amlodipine besylate, a charged dihydropyridine-type calcium channel blocker (CCB), with other non-CCB antihypertensive therapies regarding the cardiovascular outcome. METHODS: Data from seven long-term outcome trials comparing the cardiovascular outcomes of an amlodipine-based regimen with other active regimens were pooled and analyzed. RESULTS: The risk of myocardial infarction was significantly decreased with an amlodipine-based regimen compared with a non-CCB-based regimen (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.99; p = 0.03). The risk of stroke was also significantly decreased (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.90; p < 0.00001). The risk of heart failure increased slightly with marginal significance for an amlodipine-based regimen compared with a non-CCB-based regimen (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.31; p = 0.08). However, when compared overall with beta-blockers and diuretics, amlodipine showed a comparable risk. Amlodipine-based regimens demonstrated a 10% risk reduction in overall cardiovascular events (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.99; p = 0.02) and total mortality (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.99; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine reduced the risk of total cardiovascular events as well as all-cause mortality compared with non-CCB-based regimens, indicating its benefit for high-risk cardiac patients.
Amlodipine/*therapeutic use ; Antihypertensive Agents/*therapeutic use ; Blood Pressure/*drug effects ; Calcium Channel Blockers/*therapeutic use ; Chi-Square Distribution ; Clinical Trials as Topic ; Heart Failure/etiology/mortality/*prevention & control ; Humans ; Hypertension/complications/diagnosis/*drug therapy/mortality/physiopathology ; Myocardial Infarction/etiology/mortality/*prevention & control ; Odds Ratio ; Risk Factors ; Stroke/etiology/mortality/*prevention & control ; Treatment Outcome

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers (ARBs) have not been adequately evaluated in patients without left ventricular (LV) dysfunction or heart failure after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: Between November 2005 and January 2008, 6,781 patients who were not receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or ARBs were selected from the Korean AMI Registry. The primary endpoints were 12-month major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) including death and recurrent AMI. RESULTS: Seventy percent of the patients were Killip class 1 and had a LV ejection fraction > or = 40%. The prescription rate of ARBs was 12.2%. For each patient, a propensity score, indicating the likelihood of using ARBs during hospitalization or at discharge, was calculated using a non-parsimonious multivariable logistic regression model, and was used to match the patients 1:4, yielding 715 ARB users versus 2,860 ACEI users. The effect of ARBs on in-hospital mortality and 12-month MACE occurrence was assessed using matched logistic and Cox regression models. Compared with ACEIs, ARBs significantly reduced in-hospital mortality(1.3% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.379; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.190 to0.756; p = 0.006) and 12-month MACE occurrence (4.6% vs. 6.9%; HR, 0.661; 95% CI, 0.457 to 0.956; p = 0.028). However, the benefit of ARBs on 12-month mortality compared with ACEIs was marginal (4.3% vs. 6.2%; HR, 0.684; 95% CI, 0.467 to 1.002; p = 0.051). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that ARBs are not inferior to, and may actually be better than ACEIs in Korean patients with AMI.
Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers/adverse effects/*therapeutic use ; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects/*therapeutic use ; Chi-Square Distribution ; Hospital Mortality ; Humans ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Logistic Models ; Multivariate Analysis ; Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis/*drug therapy/mortality/physiopathology ; Proportional Hazards Models ; Prospective Studies ; Recurrence ; Registries ; Republic of Korea ; Risk Factors ; Secondary Prevention/*methods ; Stroke Volume ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome ; Ventricular Function, Left