The use of ACE-inhibitors after myocardial infarction

Background: There is good evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are beneficial after myocardial infarction (MI). However, it is not known how widely this evidence is used in practice and whether all eligible patients receive this therapy. Aim: To assess the usage of ACE inhibitors in patients after MI in a large teaching hospital. Method: A one month prospective analysis, combined with a three month retrospective analysis, was conducted at the Royal Brisbane Hospital (RBH) in February-March 2000. Patients admitted with an MI or who had been diagnosed with an MI during admission from November 1999 to March 2000 were identified from the coronary care unit (CCU) records. Inpatient medication charts and outpatient records were then reviewed. Information collected included: ACE inhibitor use, doses, reasons for prescribing/not prescribing ACE inhibitors, and ACE inhibitor prescribers (cardiologists or general physicians). Results: Forty four patients with an MI were included in the study, 28 of whom were prescribed ACE-inhibitors (64%). Twenty four of the 28 patients on ACE inhibitors were prescribed perindopril. The major reason given for prescribing ACE inhibitors was signs of congestive cardiac failure. All ACE inhibitors initiated in patients after MI at RBH were ordered by cardiologists. Conclusion: ACE inhibitors were prescribed appropriately in 88% of patients who met criteria for their use. This high percentage of appropriate prescribing was encouraging. Reevaluation as part of an ongoing quality assurance activity could be used to ensure this is maintained.

Angiotensin AT-1 receptor antagonism: complementary or alternative to ACE inhibition in cardiovascular and renal disease

Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and AT-1 receptor antagonists reduce the effects of angiotensin II, however they may have different clinical effects. This is because the ACE inhibitors, but not the AT-1 receptor antagonists, increase the levels of substance P, bradykinin and tissue plasminogen activator. The AT-1 receptor antagonists, but not the ACE inhibitors, are capable of inhibiting the effects of angiotensin II produced by enzymes other than ACE. On the basis of the present clinical trial evidence, AT-1 receptor antagonists, rather than the ACE inhibitors, should be used to treat hypertension associated with left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Both groups of drugs are useful when hypertension is not complicated by LV hypertrophy, and in diabetes. In the treatment of diabetes with or without hypertension, there is good clinical support for the use of either an ACE inhibitor or an AT-1 receptor antagonist. ACE inhibitors are recommended in the treatment of renal disease that is not associated with diabetes, after myocardial infarction when left ventricular dysfunction is present, and in heart failure. As the incidence of cough is much lower with the AT-1 receptor antagonists, these can be substituted for ACE inhibitors in patients with hypertension or heart failure who have persistent cough. Preliminary studies suggest that combining an AT-1 receptor antagonist with an ACE inhibitor may be more effective than an ACE inhibitor alone in the treatment of hypertension, diabetes with hypertension, renal disease without diabetes and heart failure. However, further trials are required before combination therapy can be recommended in these conditions.