-
1.
Prognostic Usefulness of Myocardial Work in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Treated by Sacubitril/Valsartan.
Bouali, Y, Donal, E, Gallard, A, Laurin, C, Hubert, A, Bidaut, A, Leclercq, C, Galli, E
The American journal of cardiology. 2020;(12):1856-1862
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
The noninvasive assessment of myocardial work (MW) by pressure-strain loops analysis (PSL) is a relative new tool for the evaluation of myocardial performance. Sacubitril/Valsartan is a treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) which has a spectacular effect on the reduction of cardiovascular events (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACEs]). This study aimed to evaluate the short- and medium-term effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan treatment on MW parameters and the prognostic value of MW in this specific group of patients. Seventy-nine patients with HFrEF (mean age: 66 ± 12 years; LV ejection fraction: 28% ± 9%) were prospectively included in the study and treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan. Echocardiographic examination was performed at baseline, and after 6- and 12-month of therapy with Sacubitril/Valsartan. Sacubitril/Valsartan significantly increased myocardial constructive work (CW) (1023 ± 449 vs 1424 ± 484 mm Hg%, p <0.0001) and myocardial work efficiency (WE) [87 (78to 90) vs 90 (86 to 95), p <0.0001]. During FU (2.6 ± 0.9 years), MACEs occurred in 13 (16%) patients. After correction for LV size, LV ejection fraction and WE, global myocardial constructive work (CW) was the only predictor of MACEs [hazard ratio [HR] 0.99 (0.99 to 1.00), p = 0.04]. A CW <910 mm Hg identified patients at particularly increase risk of MACEs [HR 11.09 (1.45 to 98.94), p = 0.002, log-rank test p <0.0001]. In conclusion, in patients with HFrEF who receive a comprehensive background beta-blocker and mineral-corticoid receptor antagonist therapy, Sacubitril/Valsartan induces a significant improvement of myocardial CW and WE. In this population, the estimation of CW before the initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan allows the prediction of MACEs.
-
2.
[The PARAGON-HF trial: missed opportunity or first personalized therapy?].
Senni, M, Di Tano, G
Giornale italiano di cardiologia (2006). 2020;(2):93-95
-
3.
Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Biomarkers of Extracellular Matrix Regulation in Patients With HFpEF.
Cunningham, JW, Claggett, BL, O'Meara, E, Prescott, MF, Pfeffer, MA, Shah, SJ, Redfield, MM, Zannad, F, Chiang, LM, Rizkala, AR, et al
Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020;(5):503-514
Abstract
BACKGROUND Myocardial fibrosis may contribute to the pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Given the biochemical targets of sacubitril/valsartan, this study hypothesized that circulating biomarkers reflecting the mechanisms that determine extracellular matrix homeostasis are altered by sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan alone. OBJECTIVES This study investigated the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on biomarkers of extracellular matrix homeostasis and the association between biomarkers and the primary endpoint (total heart failure hospitalizations and cardiovascular death). METHODS N-terminal propeptide of collagen I and III, tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1, carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I, and soluble ST2 were measured at baseline (n = 1,135) and 16 (n = 1,113) and 48 weeks (n = 1,016) after randomization. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on these biomarkers were compared with those of valsartan alone. Baseline biomarker values and changes from baseline to 16 weeks were related to primary endpoint. RESULTS At baseline, all 5 biomarkers were higher than published referent control values. Sixteen weeks after randomization, sacubitril/valsartan decreased tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 by 8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6% to 10%; p < 0.001), soluble ST2 by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 7%; p = 0.002), and N-terminal propeptide of collagen III by 3% (95% CI: 0% to 6%; p = 0.04) and increased carboxyl-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I by 4% (95% CI: 1% to 8%; p = 0.02) compared with valsartan alone, consistently in men and women and patients with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below the median of 57%. Higher levels of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase 1 and soluble ST2 at baseline and increases in these markers at 16 weeks were associated with higher primary endpoint event rates. CONCLUSIONS Biomarkers reflecting extracellular matrix homeostasis are elevated in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, favorably altered by sacubitril/valsartan, and have important prognostic value. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).
-
4.
Circulating Neprilysin in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction.
Lyle, MA, Iyer, SR, Redfield, MM, Reddy, YNV, Felker, GM, Cappola, TP, Hernandez, AF, Scott, CG, Burnett, JC, Pereira, NL
JACC. Heart failure. 2020;(1):70-80
Abstract
BACKGROUND In heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), elevated soluble neprilysin (sNEP) levels are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular death, and its inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan has improved survival. OBJECTIVES This study sought to determine the relevance of sNEP as a biomarker in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and to compare circulating sNEP levels in patients with HFpEF with normal controls. METHODS A case-control study was performed in 242 symptomatic patients with HFpEF previously enrolled in the Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) and Nitrates's Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection (NEAT-HFpEF) clinical trials and 891 asymptomatic subjects without HF or diastolic dysfunction (confirmed by NT-proBNP levels <200 pg/ml and echocardiography) who were enrolled in the Prevalence of Asymptomatic Left Ventricular Dysfunction study. sNEP was measured using a sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in all subjects. RESULTS Overall, sNEP levels were lower in HFpEF compared with controls (3.5 ng/ml; confidence interval [CI]: 2.5 to 4.8 vs. 8.5 ng/ml; CI: 7.2 to 10.0; p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and smoking history, mean sNEP levels were also lower in HFpEF compared with controls (4.0 ng/ml [CI: 2.7 to 5.4] vs. 8.2 ng/ml [CI: 6.8 to 9.7]; p = 0.002). The cohorts were propensity matched based on age, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, smoking history, and renal function, and sNEP levels remained lower in HFpEF compared with controls (median 2.4 ng/ml [interquartile range: 0.6 to 27.7] vs. 4.9 ng/ml [interquartile range: 1.2 to 42.2]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Patients with HFpEF on average have significantly lower circulating sNEP levels compared with controls. These findings challenge our current understanding of the complex biology of circulating sNEP in HFpEF.
-
5.
Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.
Cunningham, JW, Vaduganathan, M, Claggett, BL, Zile, MR, Anand, IS, Packer, M, Zannad, F, Lam, CSP, Janssens, S, Jhund, PS, et al
JACC. Heart failure. 2020;(5):372-381
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The authors sought to evaluate the prognostic significance of baseline N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), whether NT-proBNP modified the treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan, and the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan on NT-proBNP overall and in key subgroups. BACKGROUND Sacubitril/valsartan reduces NT-proBNP in heart failure (HF) with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction (EF), but did not significantly reduce total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan in patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF). METHODS In the PARAGON-HF (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial, 4,796 patients with HFpEF and elevated NT-proBNP were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan. NT-proBNP was measured at screening in all patients and at 5 subsequent times in >2,700 patients: before, between, and after sequential valsartan and sacubitril/valsartan run-in periods, and 16 and 48 weeks post-randomization. RESULTS Median NT-proBNP was 911 pg/ml (interquartile range: 464 to 1,613 pg/ml) at screening. Screening NT-proBNP was strongly associated with the primary endpoint, total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death (rate ratio [RR]: 1.68 per log increase in NT-proBNP, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.53 to 1.85; p < 0.001). This relationship was stronger in patients with atrial fibrillation (adjusted RR: 2.33 [95% CI: 1.89 to 2.87] vs. 1.58 [95% CI: 1.42 to 1.75] in patients without atrial fibrillation; p interaction <0.001) and weaker in obese patients (adjusted RR: 1.50 [95% CI: 1.31 to 1.71] vs. 1.92 [95% CI: 1.70 to 2.17] in nonobese patients; p interaction <0.001). Screening NT-proBNP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (p interaction = 0.96). Sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP by 19% (95% CI: 14% to 23%; p < 0.001) compared with valsartan 16 weeks post-randomization, with similar reductions in men (20%) and women (18%), and in patients with left ventricular EF ≤57% (20%) and >57% (18%). Decreases in NT-proBNP predicted lower subsequent risk of the primary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS Baseline NT-proBNP predicted HF events but did not modify the sacubitril/valsartan treatment effect in patients with HFpEF. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced NT-proBNP consistently in men and women, and in patients with lower or higher EF. (Efficacy and Safety of LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan, on Morbidity and Mortality in Heart Failure Patients With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).
-
6.
Impact of Sacubitril-Valsartan on Markers of Glomerular Function.
Tersalvi, G, Dauw, J, Martens, P, Mullens, W
Current heart failure reports. 2020;(4):145-152
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW To provide pathophysiological and clinical insights into the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on glomerular function. RECENT FINDINGS Heart failure and glomerular dysfunction are closely intertwined. In addition to reduced heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality, patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan have a slower deterioration of glomerular filtration rate over time compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan are probably mediated through enhancement of natriuretic peptides, reduction of glomerular inflammation and fibrosis, and relaxation of mesangial cells and podocytes. Further studies will elucidate underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan on glomerular function and their prognostic significance in subjects with and without heart failure.
-
7.
Clinical and echocardiographic benefit of Sacubitril/Valsartan in a real-world population with HF with reduced ejection fraction.
Polito, MV, Silverio, A, Rispoli, A, Vitulano, G, Auria, F, De Angelis, E, Loria, F, Gigantino, A, Bonadies, D, Citro, R, et al
Scientific reports. 2020;(1):6665
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan (S/V) on clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic parameters and outcomes in a real-world population with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This was a prospective observational study enrolling patients with HFrEF undergoing treatment with S/V. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death and HF rehospitalization at 12 months follow-up; secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiac death and the occurrence of rehospitalization for worsening HF. The clinical outcome was compared with a retrospective cohort of 90 HFrEF patients treated with standard medical therapy. The study included 90 patients (66.1 ± 11.7 years) treated with S/V. The adjusted regression analysis showed a significantly lower risk for the primary outcome (HR:0.31; 95%CI, 0.11-0.83; p = 0.019) and for HF rehospitalization (HR:0.27; 95%CI, 0.08-0.94; p = 0.039) in S/V patients as compared to the control group. A significant improvement in NYHA class, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end systolic volume and systolic pulmonary arterial pressure was observed up to 6 months. S/V did not affect negatively renal function and was associated with a significantly lower dose of furosemide dose prescribed at 6- and 12-month follow-up. In this study, S/V reduced the risk of HF rehospitalization and cardiac death at 1 year in patients with HFrEF. S/V improved NYHA class, echocardiographic parameters and need of furosemide, and preserved renal function.
-
8.
Optimizing heart failure treatment following cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Jorsal, A, Pryds, K, McMurray, JJV, Wiggers, H, Sommer, A, Nielsen, JC, Nielsen, RR
Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society. 2020;(5):638-645
Abstract
BACKGROUND Device therapy in addition to medical treatment improves prognosis in a subset of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. However, some patients remain symptomatic or their heart failure even progresses despite cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of the study was to evaluate the proportion of patients who could benefit from optimization of medical therapy using sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, or both following CRT implantation. METHODS We conducted a post hoc analysis of a single-centre, patient and outcome-assessor blinded, randomized-controlled trial, in which patients scheduled for CRT were randomized to empiric (n = 93) or imaging-guided left-ventricular lead placement (n = 89). All patients underwent clinical evaluation and blood sampling at baseline and 6 months following CRT implantation. The proportion of patients meeting the indication for sacubitril/valsartan (irrespective of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin 2 receptor blocker dosage) and/or ivabradine according to current guidelines was evaluated at baseline and after 6 months. RESULTS Of 182 patients with an indication for CRT, 146 (80%) also had an indication for optimization of medical therapy at baseline by adding sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, or both. Of the 179 survivors at 6 months, 136 (76%) were still symptomatic after device implantation; of these, 51 (38%) patients had an indication for optimization of medical therapy: sacubitril/valsartan in 37 (27%), ivabradine in 7 (5%), and both drugs in 7 (5%) patients. Seven (18%) patients without indication at baseline developed an indication for medical optimization 6 months after CRT implantation. CONCLUSION In the present study, 38% of those who remained symptomatic 6 months after CRT implantation were eligible for optimization of medical therapy with sacubitril/valsartan, ivabradine, or both. Patients with CRT may benefit from systematic follow-up including evaluation of medical treatment.
-
9.
Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Results from PARADIGM-HF India sub-study.
Jain, AR, Aggarwal, RK, Rao, NS, Billa, G, Kumar, S
Indian heart journal. 2020;(6):535-540
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To determine efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared with enalapril in Indian patients of PARADIGM-HF trial. METHODS A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase III sub-study (NCT01035255) was conducted between April 2010 and May 2014. Patients with chronic heart failure (HF), aged >18 years with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% were randomized (1:1) to receive either sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg twice-daily or enalapril 10 mg twice-daily. The primary endpoint was to compare efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan to enalapril in delaying time-to-first occurrence of the composite endpoint (cardiovascular [CV] death or HF hospitalization). RESULTS The trial was stopped after a median follow-up of 27 months, because the boundary for benefit with sacubitril/valsartan had crossed. Among 637 Indian patients in PARADIGM-HF (sacubitril/valsartan, n = 322 and enalapril, n = 315), the primary outcome, CV death, and the first hospitalization for HF occurred in 21.81% and 24.76% (HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.646-1.231), 17.45% and 20.63% (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.605-1.236), and 7.48% and 9.52% (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.461-1.350) patients in the sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril group, respectively. The all-cause mortality (19.0% vs. 21.9%) and adverse events (78.4% vs. 82.2%) were comparatively lower in the sacubitril/valsartan than enalapril group. No significant difference was seen between the benefits of treatment in Indian and the total PARADIGM-HF cohort (p value for interaction >0.05). CONCLUSION Results support the use of sacubitril/valsartan in Indian patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction with treatment benefits similar to global PARADIGM-HF cohort.
-
10.
Beneficial and harmful effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure: a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Nielsen, EE, Feinberg, JB, Bu, FL, Hecht Olsen, M, Raymond, I, Steensgaard-Hansen, F, Jakobsen, JC
Open heart. 2020;(2)
Abstract
Current guidelines recommend angiotensin receptor blocker neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) (sacubitril/valsartan) as a replacement for angiotensin-converting-enzymeinhibitor (ACE-I) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. The effects of ARNIs have not previously been assessed in a systematic review. We searched for relevant trials until October 2019 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, CNKI, VIP, WanFang and CBM. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. We systematically assessed the risks of random errors and systematic errors. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019129336. 48 trials randomising 19 086 participants were included. The ARNI assessed in all trials was sacubitril/valsartan. ACE-I or ARB were used as control interventions. Trials randomising HFrEF participants (27 trials) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) participants (four trials) were analysed separately. In HFrEF participants, meta-analyses and Trial Sequential Analyses showed evidence of a beneficial effect of sacubitril/valsartan when assessing all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR), 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.94) and serious adverse events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93); and the results did not differ between the guideline recommended target population and HFrEF participants in general. We found no evidence of an effect of sacubitril/valsartan in HFpEF participants. Sacubitril/valsartan compared with either ACE-I or ARB seems to have a beneficial effect in patients with HFrEF. Our results indicate that sacubitril/valsartan might be beneficial in a wider population of patients with heart failure than the guideline recommended target population. Sacubitril/valsartan does not seem to show evidence of a difference compared with valsartan in patients with HFpEF.