Angiotensin blockade or aldosterone blockade as the third neuroendocrine-blocking drug in mild but symptomatic heart failure patients

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    4 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Recent clinical trials have explored whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or aldosterone blockade should be added to standard angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/ß blocker treatment in heart failure. Both strategies are of some value but it is unclear which strategy should be used first in patients with mild but symptomatic heart failure. The arguments for and against each strategy are discussed. The strongest argument for aldosterone blockade is the consistency in the results of the RALES (Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study) and EPHESUS (Eplerenone Post-acute Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure Efficacy and Survival Study) studies, but what is lacking is a trial of aldosterone blockade in patients with mild, symptomatic heart failure as such. The strongest argument for ARBs is that the CHARM (Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity) Added trial result was positive in the precise patient population of interest (mild, symptomatic heart failure). The strength of this argument is diminished by the somewhat different results in Val-HeFT (Valsartan Heart Failure Trial). A third possibility is to use neither an ARB nor an aldosterone blocker and arguments can be marshalled for this position also. Clinicians should now assess these various arguments to select what they believe would be best for their patients.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1728-1731
    Number of pages4
    JournalHeart (British Cardiac Society)
    Volume92
    Issue number12
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Dec 2006

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Angiotensin blockade or aldosterone blockade as the third neuroendocrine-blocking drug in mild but symptomatic heart failure patients'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this