The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and death: a meta-analysis
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality and total mortality. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized comparative trials between angiotensin II receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Inclusion criteria were publication in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Medline, randomized comparison of angiotensin II receptor blockers vs. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin II receptor blockers + angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, report of major complications including myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality or all-cause mortality; average follow-up of at least 1 year in at least 200 patients. RESULTS: Six trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria, for a total of 49 924 patients. In the pooled estimate, there were no significant differences between angiotensin II receptor blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratio 1.01; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.07; P = 0.75), cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.08; P = 0.23) and total mortality (odds ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.97-1.10; P = 0.20). This was the case also when the analysis involved only the comparison between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers. Overall, the risk of stroke was slightly lower with angiotensin II receptor blockers than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (odds ratio 0.92; 95% confidence interval 0.85-0.99; P = 0.037), the direct angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers comparison showing a nonsignificant trend in a similar direction. Statistical heterogeneity among trials was not significant, with a low to null inconsistency statistic, for stroke (P = 0.67), myocardial infarction (P = 0.86), cardiovascular mortality (P = 0.14) and total mortality (P = 0.12). CONCLUSION: This overview suggests that angiotensin II receptor blockers are as effective as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the risk of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality and total mortality. Angiotensin II receptor blockers may be slightly more protective than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the risk of stroke.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Telmisartan, ramipril, or both in patients at high risk for vascular events
(2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0801317 · Cited by 3,502
Pfeffer, M. A., McMurray, J. J. V., Velazquez, E. J., Rouleau, J.-L., Køber, L., Maggioni, A. P., Solomon, S. D., Swedberg, K., Van de Werf, F., White, H., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa032292 · Cited by 2,471
Mancia, G., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., Cifkova, R., Fagard, R., Germano, G., Grassi, G., Heagerty, A. M., Kjeldsen, S. E., Laurent, S., et al. (2007) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0b013e3282f0580f · Cited by 1,837
Self-citationAngiotensin-receptor blockade versus converting-enzyme inhibition in type 2 diabetes and nephropathy
Barnett, A. H., Bain, S. C., Bouter, P., Karlberg, B., Madsbad, S., Jervell, J., & Mustonen, J. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa042274 · Cited by 910
Cited by
(2013) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/eht151 · Cited by 13,655
2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension
Williams, B., Mancia, G., Spiering, W., Agabiti Rosei, E., Azizi, M., Burnier, M., Clement, D. L., Coca, A., de Simone, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2018) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy339 · Cited by 10,286
Self-citationMancia, G., Fagard, R., Narkiewicz, K., Redón, J., Zanchetti, A., Böhm, M., Christiaens, T., Cifkova, R., De Backer, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2013) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/01.hjh.0000431740.32696.cc · Cited by 5,655
Self-citationMancia, G., Kreutz, R., Brunström, M., Burnier, M., Grassi, G., Januszewicz, A., Muiesan, M. L., Tsioufis, K., Agabiti-Rosei, E., Algharably, E. A. E., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000003480 · Cited by 3,473
Self-citationWilliams, B., Mancia, G., Spiering, W., Agabiti Rosei, E., Azizi, M., Burnier, M., Clement, D. L., Coca, A., de Simone, G., Dominiczak, A., et al. (2018) · Journal of Hypertension · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000001940 · Cited by 2,885
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Reboldi, G., Angeli, F., Cavallini, C., Gentile, G., Mancia, G., & Verdecchia, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Hypertension
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1282-1289
- ISSN
- 0263-6352 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984969055
- Cited by
- 164
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 2.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and death: a meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/hjh.0b013e328306ebe2
- The paper
- Reboldi, G., Angeli, F., Cavallini, C., Gentile, G., Mancia, G., & Verdecchia, P. (2008). Comparison between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke and death: a meta-analysis. Journal of Hypertension. https://doi.org/10.1097/hjh.0b013e328306ebe2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.