The Effectiveness of Eplerenone vs Spironolactone on Left Ventricular Systolic Function, Hospitalization and Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure-HFrEF.

Q2 Medicine
Nabil Naser, Azra Durak-Nalbantic, Nirvana Sabanovic-Bajramovic, Alen Karic
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Eplerenone vs Spironolactone on Left Ventricular Systolic Function, Hospitalization and Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure-HFrEF.","authors":"Nabil Naser,&nbsp;Azra Durak-Nalbantic,&nbsp;Nirvana Sabanovic-Bajramovic,&nbsp;Alen Karic","doi":"10.5455/medarh.2023.77.105-111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Heart failure remains one of the most prevalent clinical syndromes associated with significant morbidity and mortality. According to current guidelines, the prescription of a MRA is recommended to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and death in all patients with symptomatic heart failure and no contraindications for this therapy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of eplerenone vs. spironolactone on left ventricular systolic function by measuring left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with chronic heart failure, especially their effect on preventing hospitalization, reducing mortality, and improving clinical status among patients with chronic HF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From June 2021 to June 2022, the study was a randomized, prospective clinical trial single blind study. A total of 142 patients of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were selected by random sampling. Each patient was randomly allocated into either of the two groups and was continued receiving treatment with either spironolactone (Spiron-HF group) or eplerenone (Epler-HF group). Patients in Epler-HF group were compared with an arm of the same size and matched by age and gender patients in Spiron-HF group for management of chronic HFrEF. Each patient was evaluated clinically, biochemically, and echocardiographically at the beginning of treatment (baseline) after 6 months and at the end of 12th month. Echocardiography was performed to find out change in left ventricular systolic function.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 12 months of treatment, significant improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction was observed in eplerenone treated arm (37.9 ± 3.8 ± 4.6 in Spiron-HF group versus 40.1 ± 5.7 in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05). A significant reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (6.3 ± 2.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 17.8± 4.4ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05) and left ventricular systolic diameter volume (2.7 ± 0.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 6.7 ± 0.2ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05), occurred after 12 months of treatment. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) was significantly improved in Epler-HF group compared with Spiron-HF group (0.6 ± 0.4 versus 3.4 ± 0.9; P < 0.05). There were no significant differences observed in reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (2.2 ± 0.5 ml versus 4.7 ± 1.1ml; P =0.103) and left ventricular diastolic diameter (1.2 ± 0.6 versus 1.7 ± 0.3; P=0.082) in both arms. The effects of both MRA agents spironolactone and eplerenone on the primary composite outcome, each of the individual mortality and hospital admission outcomes are shown in Figure 1 and 2. Patients of the Epler-HF group showed statistically significant lower cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.34-0.82; p= 0.007) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p= 0.022) than patients of the Spiron-HF group. The statistical analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between Epler -HF and Spiron-HF study groups regarding the risk of the primary composite outcome; cardiovascular death or hospitalization due to HF (Hazard Ratio (HR) eplerenone vs. spironolactone = 0.95; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.73- 1.27; p= 0.675).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study has demonstrated favorable effects of eplerenone on cardiac remodeling parameters and reduction of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality compared with spironolactone in the treatment of HFrEF. The ability of eplerenone to effectively block the mineralocorticoid receptor while minimizing side effects and a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization and cardiovascular death confirms its key role in the treatment of patients with chronic HFrEF.</p>","PeriodicalId":18421,"journal":{"name":"Medicinski arhiv","volume":"77 2","pages":"105-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bc/dc/medarch-77-105.PMC10227849.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicinski arhiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5455/medarh.2023.77.105-111","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Heart failure remains one of the most prevalent clinical syndromes associated with significant morbidity and mortality. According to current guidelines, the prescription of a MRA is recommended to reduce the risk of HF hospitalization and death in all patients with symptomatic heart failure and no contraindications for this therapy.

Objective: The aim of our study was to determine the efficacy of eplerenone vs. spironolactone on left ventricular systolic function by measuring left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with chronic heart failure, especially their effect on preventing hospitalization, reducing mortality, and improving clinical status among patients with chronic HF.

Methods: From June 2021 to June 2022, the study was a randomized, prospective clinical trial single blind study. A total of 142 patients of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were selected by random sampling. Each patient was randomly allocated into either of the two groups and was continued receiving treatment with either spironolactone (Spiron-HF group) or eplerenone (Epler-HF group). Patients in Epler-HF group were compared with an arm of the same size and matched by age and gender patients in Spiron-HF group for management of chronic HFrEF. Each patient was evaluated clinically, biochemically, and echocardiographically at the beginning of treatment (baseline) after 6 months and at the end of 12th month. Echocardiography was performed to find out change in left ventricular systolic function.

Results: After 12 months of treatment, significant improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction was observed in eplerenone treated arm (37.9 ± 3.8 ± 4.6 in Spiron-HF group versus 40.1 ± 5.7 in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05). A significant reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (6.3 ± 2.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 17.8± 4.4ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05) and left ventricular systolic diameter volume (2.7 ± 0.5ml in Spiron-HF versus 6.7 ± 0.2ml in Epler-HF group; P < 0.05), occurred after 12 months of treatment. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) was significantly improved in Epler-HF group compared with Spiron-HF group (0.6 ± 0.4 versus 3.4 ± 0.9; P < 0.05). There were no significant differences observed in reduction of left ventricular end-diastolic volume (2.2 ± 0.5 ml versus 4.7 ± 1.1ml; P =0.103) and left ventricular diastolic diameter (1.2 ± 0.6 versus 1.7 ± 0.3; P=0.082) in both arms. The effects of both MRA agents spironolactone and eplerenone on the primary composite outcome, each of the individual mortality and hospital admission outcomes are shown in Figure 1 and 2. Patients of the Epler-HF group showed statistically significant lower cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.53; 95% CI 0.34-0.82; p= 0.007) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p= 0.022) than patients of the Spiron-HF group. The statistical analysis did not show a statistically significant difference between Epler -HF and Spiron-HF study groups regarding the risk of the primary composite outcome; cardiovascular death or hospitalization due to HF (Hazard Ratio (HR) eplerenone vs. spironolactone = 0.95; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.73- 1.27; p= 0.675).

Conclusion: Our study has demonstrated favorable effects of eplerenone on cardiac remodeling parameters and reduction of cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality compared with spironolactone in the treatment of HFrEF. The ability of eplerenone to effectively block the mineralocorticoid receptor while minimizing side effects and a significant reduction in the risk of hospitalization and cardiovascular death confirms its key role in the treatment of patients with chronic HFrEF.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

埃普利酮与螺内酯对慢性心力衰竭患者左心室收缩功能、住院和心血管死亡的影响
背景:心力衰竭仍然是最常见的临床综合征之一,与显著的发病率和死亡率相关。根据目前的指南,建议所有有症状的心力衰竭患者使用MRA处方来降低HF住院和死亡的风险,并且该疗法没有禁忌症。目的:我们的研究旨在通过测量慢性心力衰竭患者的左心室射血分数(LVEF)来确定依普利酮与螺内酯对左心室收缩功能的影响,特别是它们在预防慢性心衰患者住院、降低死亡率和改善临床状况方面的作用。方法:2021年6月至2022年6月,该研究是一项随机、前瞻性临床试验的单盲研究。随机抽取142例射血分数降低的慢性心力衰竭患者。每个患者被随机分配到两组中的任何一组,并继续接受螺内酯(Spiron HF组)或依普利酮(Epler HF组)的治疗。将Epler HF组的患者与Spiron HF组中相同大小、按年龄和性别匹配的手臂进行比较,以治疗慢性HFrEF。在6个月后的治疗开始(基线)和12个月底,对每位患者进行临床、生化和超声心动图评估。超声心动图检查左心室收缩功能的变化。结果:治疗12个月后,依普利酮治疗组的左心室射血分数显著改善(Spiron HF组为37.9±3.8±4.6,Epler HF组为40.1±5.7;P<0.05)(Spiron HF组为2.7±0.5ml,Epler HF组为6.7±0.2ml;P<0.05)。与Spiron HF组相比,Epler HF组的左心室整体纵向应变(LV GLS)显著改善(0.6±0.4对3.4±0.9;P<0.05)双臂。MRA药物螺内酯和依普利酮对主要复合结果、每个个体死亡率和住院结果的影响如图1和图2所示。Epler HF组患者的心血管死亡率(HR 0.53;95%CI 0.34-0.82;p=0.007)和全因死亡率(HR 0.64;95%CI 0.44-0.93;p=0.022)均低于Spiron HF组患者。统计分析没有显示Epler-HF和Spiron HF研究组在主要复合结果风险方面的统计学显著差异;HF引起的心血管死亡或住院(依普利酮与螺内酯的危险比=0.95;95%置信区间(CI)0.73-1.27;p=0.675)。结论:在治疗HFrEF中,与螺内酯相比,我们的研究表明依普利酮对心脏重塑参数以及降低心血管死亡率和全因死亡率有良好的效果。依普利酮能够有效阻断盐皮质激素受体,同时最大限度地减少副作用,显著降低住院和心血管死亡风险,这证实了其在治疗慢性HFrEF患者中的关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medicinski arhiv
Medicinski arhiv Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信