Telmisartan versus EnalapRil In heart failure with redUced ejection fraction patients with Moderately impaired kidney Functions; randomized controlled trial: “TRIUMF trial”

The Egyptian Heart Journal

Table 4 Between-groups and within-group differences in NYHA class, 6MWT and required maintenance loop diuretic doses at baseline and by the end of the study

NYHA classification [n (%)]		Telmisartan	Enalapril	Between groups P-value
Baseline	I–II	35 (64.8%)	29 (55.8%)	0.655
	III	11 (20.4%)	13 (25%)
	IV	8 (14.8%)	10 (19.2%)
6-months	I–II	28 (68.3%)	22 (50%)	0.071
	III	10 (24.4%)	11 (25%)
	IV	3 (7.3%)	11 (25%)
Within-group P-value*		0.024	0.108

6-MWT [mean ± (SD)]	Telmisartan	Enalapril	Between groups P-value
Baseline	104.91 ± 10.3	121.01 ± 10.1	0.268
6-months	147.56 ± 11.6	139.27 ± 15.2	0.668
Within-group P-value*	0.019	0.136

Maintenance loop diuretic dose^† [mean ± (SD)]	Telmisartan	Enalapril	Between groups P-value
Baseline	100 ± 99	108 ± 104	0.503
6-months	120 ± 123	176 ± 208	0.143
Within-group P-value*	0.198	0.006

Bold refers to statistically significant p value
6MWT—6-Minute walk test; NYHA—New York Heart Association class
^*Highlighting the difference within each group between baseline to the end of the study by McNemar or repeated measures ANOVA testing as appropriate
^†Expressed in Frusemide equivalents, considering 20 mg of Torsemide, 1 mg of Bumetanide and 40 mg of Frusemide as equivalents