Dataset Information

Impact of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors on long-term clinical outcomes of patients with rheumatic heart disease.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) remains a major global health problem. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) are commonly administered in the treatment of cardiovascular disease, but its role in RHD patients is still limited. We performed a retrospective study to determine the effect of RAASi on long-term outcomes for RHD patients.

Methods and results

A 1:1 propensity score matching was implemented to balance baseline characteristics between groups RAASi and non-RAASi. Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to investigate the associations of RAASi with the risks of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death (CVD), and cerebrovascular death. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the associations of RAASi with the risks of 1, 3, and 5 year heart failure (HF) rehospitalization, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), and new-onset stroke. A total of 734 RHD patients were enrolled as study participants; nearly half of these participants had combined valve damage (54.4%), worse New York Heart Association functional class status (III and IV, 55.2%), surgical treatment (54.2%), and AF (65.0%). After propensity score matching, 514 RHD patients were finally analysed. RAASi treatment was associated with decreased risks of all-cause mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37-0.73, P < 0.001], CVD (adjusted HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.76, P = 0.002), and cerebrovascular death (adjusted HR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.08-0.60, P = 0.003). Further subgroup analysis showed that RAASi treatment was associated with decreased risks of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.31-0.79, P = 0.004), CVD (adjusted HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.91, P = 0.025), and cerebrovascular death (adjusted HR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.05-0.65, P = 0.008) in RHD patients without surgical treatment, and better effect was observed in RHD patients with surgical treatment on the risks of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.26-0.85, P = 0.012) and CVD (adjusted HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21-0.90, P = 0.024) except cerebrovascular death (adjusted HR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.08-3.36, P = 0.491). RAASi treatment was associated with decreased HF rehospitalization risk of 1 year [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.23-0.61, P < 0.001], 3 year (adjusted OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28-0.68, P < 0.001), and 5 year (adjusted OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.30-0.77, P = 0.002) as well as new-onset AF risk (adjusted OR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.21-0.68, P = 0.001). RAASi treatment had nothing to do with new-onset stroke risk (adjusted OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.47-1.38, P = 0.428).

Conclusion

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor treatment was significantly associated with decreased risks of mortality, HF rehospitalization, and new-onset AF in RHD patients in median 5.9 year follow-up.

SUBMITTER: Liu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8712808 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRenin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) have been shown to improve outcomes in studies of multiple malignancies by effects on the tumor microenvironment to enhance the immune repertoire and improve drug delivery. Repurposing RASi to treat metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) in combination with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) may improve survival coupled with tolerability and cost efficacy. We evaluated the impact of RASi on outcomes in mRCC patients receiving ICI.MethodsThis multicenter, retrospective cohort study included mRCC patients treated with ICI with or without RASi. The patients from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) were used as a discovery cohort, and the patients from University of California San Diego (UCSD) were used for validation. Receipt of an ICI (PD1/L1 and/or CTLA-4 inhibitors) was required. RASi use was defined as receipt of a RASi at baseline and for a minimum of 30 days after ICI initiation. For both the discovery and validation cohorts, the primary outcome assessed was overall survival (OS) and the secondary endpoints were time-to-treatment failure (TTF), and objective response rate (ORR).ResultsOverall, 229 patients who received an ICI were included: 100 patients from DFCI and 129 patients from UCSD. Concomitant RASi were administered in 30 patients (30%) in the DFCI cohort and 59 (45%) in the UCSD cohort. Median age at ICI initiation was 62.5 years in both cohorts. Median follow-up was 3.8 [IQR 3-5.3] years in the DFCI cohort, and 2.3 [IQR 1.4-3.6] years in the UCSD cohort. In the DFCI cohort, RASi was significantly associated with longer OS (adjusted-HR 0.35 [95% CI, 0.17-0.70], P = .003) and TTF (adjusted-HR 0.57 [0.36-0.92], P = .02). In the validation cohort, RASi was associated with TTF (adjusted HR, 0.60 [0.39-0.92], P = .02) and not statistically associated with OS (adjusted-HR 0.60 [0.34-1.06], P = .07). The propensity analysis, matching 83 patients from both cohorts receiving RASi while on ICI with 83 who did not, showed that RASi significantly improved OS (HR 0.59 [0.37-0.95], P = .03) and TTF (HR 0.60 [0.43-0.85], P = .0034).ConclusionsRASi was associated with improved OS and TTF in mRCC patients receiving ICI. This provides a rationale for prospective randomized studies combining ICI and RASi in mRCC patients.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The beneficial effect of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors has been well-established in patients with cardiovascular disease; however, their effectiveness in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), a selected disease-burdened population, is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term outcomes of RAS inhibitor use in patients with CLTI undergoing a vascular intervention. METHODS:For this study, all patients with CLTI undergoing a first-time revascularization (bypass or endovascular) were analyzed at our institution between 2005 and 2014. Patients discharged on an RAS inhibitor (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker) were compared with those not on an RAS inhibitor. The inverse probability of treatment weighting with additional regression analyses were used to determine the long-term risk of mortality and major adverse events. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the dose-related therapeutic response of RAS inhibitors (low-dose vs high-dose therapy). RESULTS:Between 2005 and 2014, 1303 limbs from 1161 patients were identified. Of these patients, 52% were discharged on an RAS inhibitor, with 67% discharged on a high-dose therapy and 33% on a low-dose therapy. Patients discharged on an RAS inhibitor suffered more frequently from diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction, whereas those not on an RAS inhibitor had more chronic kidney disease (all P < .05). There was no difference in the proportion of patients presenting with tissue loss. After adjustment for these and other baseline covariates, RAS inhibitor use was associated with less late mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.94). Discharge on a high-dose RAS inhibitor was associated with lower mortality (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86), whereas a low-dose RAS inhibitor was not associated with less mortality (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.73-1.24) compared with patients not prescribed an RAS inhibitor. This association remained significant when comparing high-dose with low-dose therapy (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98). No associations were found between RAS inhibitor use and major adverse limb event (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.73-1.22), major amputation (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.57-1.18), or reintervention (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85-1.31). These point estimates were not different for those on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs angiotensin receptor blockers, nor were they affected by the type of revascularization. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with CLTI prescribed an RAS inhibitor at discharge demonstrated significantly less long-term mortality, whereas limb events were unaffected. These data indicate that, in these heavily burdened patients, the benefit is restricted to those on a high dose, which underscores the importance of attaining these doses.