Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients with ACE Inhibitor–Induced Angioedema

2000 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 526-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly K Warner ◽  
James A Visconti ◽  
Marva M Tschampel

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety of using angiotensin II receptor blockers in patients who have experienced angioedema following treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors. DATA SOURCES: Clinical literature identified through MEDLINE (January 1966–August 1999). Key search terms included angioneurotic edema, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, receptors–angiotensin, and losartan. DATA SYNTHESIS: ACE inhibitor–induced angioedema occurs with an incidence of 0.1–0.5%. Alternative therapy is necessary for patients who experience this potentially life-threatening adverse effect. Since angiotensin II receptor blockers do not increase concentrations of bradykinin, the proposed mechanism of ACE inhibitor–induced angioedema, they were presumed to be safe alternatives. Recent case reports, however, document angioedema following therapy with angiotensin II receptor blockers; 32% of the reported patients experienced a prior episode of angioedema attributed to ACE inhibitor therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Until the exact cause of both ACE inhibitor– and angiotensin II receptor blocker–induced angioedema is determined, angiotensin II receptor blockers should be used with extreme caution in patients with a prior history of angioedema.

Angiology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (10) ◽  
pp. 886-893
Author(s):  
María Cespón-Fernández ◽  
Sergio Raposeiras-Roubín ◽  
Emad Abu-Assi ◽  
Isabel Muñoz Pousa ◽  
Berenice Caneiro Queija ◽  
...  

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) showed comparable survival results in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, there is lack of evidence of the comparative effectiveness in preserved LVEF patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the selection between ACEi and ARB in preserved LVEF after an ACS confers a prognostic benefit, based on real life results. We analyzed a cohort of 3006 contemporary patients with LVEF ≥40% after an ACS. A propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis were performed to assess the association between treatment and events (death, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], HF, and combined event) for a mean follow-up of 3.6 ± 2.1 years. We found no significant differences between ACEi/ARB for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] for ARB: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.70-1.29), AMI (HR for ARB: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.95-1.89), HF (HR for ARB: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.85-1.45), or combined end point (death, AMI and HF: HR for ARB: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.92-1.40). In conclusion, there are no prognostic differences between the use of ACEi and ARB in patients with LVEF ≥40% after ACS. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document