Cardiol J. 2020 Oct 1. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2020.0130. Online ahead of print.
BACKGROUND: Selecting angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II type I receptor blocker (ARB) in patients diagnosed as acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with non-obstructive coronary arteries (MINOCA) is not established. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical effect of ACEI vs. ARB in MINOCA patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 273 patients between November 2011 to June 2015, diagnosed with MINOCA who were registered in the Korea AMI Registry - National Institute of Health were enrolled. Patients were divided into ACEI (n = 112) and ARB groups (n = 161). The primary endpoint was cumulative incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, recurrent MI, any new revascularization during 2 years clinical follow-up. Secondary endpoint was heart failure requiring re-hospitalization. Propensity score matching analysis was done. The incidence of primary endpoint was similar (10.4% vs. 15.6%, HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.29-1.47; p = 0.301) among both groups. However, the incidence of recurrent MI was significantly lower in ACEI group compared to ARB group (2.1% vs. 10.4%, HR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04-0.86; p = 0.031).
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, the risk and incidence of MACE was similar between ACEI and ARB therapy in MINOCA patients. However, ACEI significantly reduced the risk of recurrent MI. Further larger scale multi-center randomized clinical trials are needed to clarify the proper use of renin angiotensin aldosterone system blocker in these patients.