Up to September, 1993, several questions were open on the use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors after myocardial infarction. The SAVE trial has shown that patients with left ventricular dysfunction and a recent (mean 11 days) myocardial infarction benefit from assuming captopril per os during the subsequent clinical course. The SOLVD trials have indicated that therapy with enalapril per os increases the survival of patients with left ventricular dysfunction, a history of myocardial infarction and hemodynamic decompensation. However, the CONSENSUS II trial has not shown similar results on patients with all range left ventricular function, treated within 24 hours of infarction with i.v. enalaprilat and then enalapril per os. In this study, 6-month mortality has been slightly better in the placebo group, and there seems not to be any subgroup benefitting from the ACE inhibitor. In October and November, 1993, the International Cardiologic Community has received the results of 3 large multicenter trials on postinfarction patients: the AIRE (ramipril per os), the GISSI 3 (lisinopril per os) and the ISIS 4 (captopril per os) studies. These trials has pointed out the followings: 1) prompt therapy (within 24 hours of chest pain) with ACE inhibitors is able to improve short term survival in patients with clinical evidence of heart failure, in women and old patients; 2) ACE inhibitors and nitro derivatives are complementary therapies in the acute and subacute phase of infarction, and their association produces the best improvement in short-term survival. There seems to be no intelligible reason, up to now, to deem that any ACE inhibitor should be considered better than another one in the acute phase of infarction, but still during the first 72 hours after the onset of chest pain the advantages have been shown only with lisinopril and captopril. The negative results of the CONSENSUS II trial are probably dependent on the excessively abrupt acute hypotensive effect of i.v. enalaprilat. This last "large trial" decade has taught us that many treatments can be advantageous for acute myocardial infarction but, apart from thrombolysis, all other medical therapies should not be given extensively, but to peculiar patients carefully selected on clinical grounds. Guidelines from official consensus conferences are expected now, to segregate different patterns of clinical presentations to be treated differently.