Renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone system inhibitors and major cardiovascular events and acute kidney injury in patients with coronary artery disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) are recommended for most patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, there is debate across guidelines as to which patients with CAD benefit the most from these agents. This study investigated the association between RAASIs and cardiovascular outcomes and acute kidney injury in a contemporary cohort of patients with CAD. METHODS: Patients ≥65 years of age with CAD alive on April 1, 2012 in Ontario, Canada were included. Outcomes included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, stroke, or coronary revascularization), and acute kidney injury (AKI) hospitalizations at 4 years. Inverse probability of treatment-weighted Cox proportional hazards regression models was used to compare the rates of each outcome in patients treated with and without RAASIs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers). RESULTS: There were 165,058 patients with CAD identified (mean age 75 years, 65.5% male, 64.7% prescribed RAASIs). After inverse-probability weighting, treatment with RAASIs was associated with a lower rate of MACE compared with treatment without RAASIs (17.6% vs 18.2%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93-0.99, respectively). However, treatment with RAASIs was associated with a higher rate of AKI compared with treatment without RAASIs (1.7% vs 1.5%, HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02-1.29, respectively). The reduction in MACE was greater in patients with prior MI (HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.82-0.92) compared with patients without prior MI (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.97-1.04, interaction p < 0.01). The increase in AKI was lower in patients with prior MI (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.00) compared with patients without prior MI (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.19-1.57, interaction p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the continued use of RAASIs in patients with CAD, although the benefit appears smaller in magnitude than observed in prior trials. High-risk patients, particularly those with prior MI, appear to benefit the most from RAASIs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".