-
1.
Sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A first real-life observational study in Poland.
Lelonek, M, Wiśniowska-Śmiałek, S, Rubiś, P, Nowakowska, I, Pawlak, A
Advances in clinical and experimental medicine : official organ Wroclaw Medical University. 2021;(1):67-75
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite the progress in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the prognosis remains unfavorable. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effectiveness, tolerance and safety after one-year follow-up of Polish patients with stable chronic HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan. MATERIAL AND METHODS This was an observational multicenter study conducted in 3 centers (Kraków, Łódź and Warszawa) specializing in heart failure (HF). We enrolled 89 HFrEF patients (aged 59.3 ±13.5 years, 82% males) in NYHA class II-IV (ambulatory). Clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated at baseline and after a one-year follow-up. The composite endpoint was defined as death or urgent HF hospitalization. RESULTS After 1 year, 80% of patients used 50% or more of the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan. After a year of treatment, there were significant improvements of HF symptoms, N-terminal prohormone B-type natriuretic peptide (NT proBNP), ejection fraction (EF), and distance in six-minute walk test (6MWP) (all p < 0.001). Patients treated with the highest dose of sacubitril/valsartan exhibited the greatest benefits. The safety profile was favorable and consistent with that previously reported; however, therapy discontinuation due to side effects occurred in 11% of patients. The independent predictors for composite endpoint (n = 24, 26.9%) were history of HF hospitalization, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)-naive patients. CONCLUSIONS Treatment of chronic HFrEF patients with sacubitril/valsartan is safe and is associated with significant clinical and objective improvement. The non-survivors had more advanced HF, so the initiation and uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan should be done early.
-
2.
Urinary peptidome and diabetic retinopathy in the DIRECT-Protect 1 and 2 trials.
Rotbain Curovic, V, Magalhães, P, He, T, Hansen, TW, Mischak, H, Rossing, P, ,
Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association. 2021;(9):e14634
Abstract
BACKGROUND Given the association of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and kidney disease, we investigated the urinary peptidome to presence and deterioration of DR in a post hoc analysis of trials investigating the effect of candesartan on progression of DR in type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. METHODS Baseline urinary peptidomic analysis was performed on a random selection of 783 and 792 subjects in two randomized controlled trials, DIRECT-Protect 1 and 2, respectively. End points were two-step (RET2) and three-step (RET3) change in Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study protocol (ETDRS) defined level. Peptide levels were correlated to baseline EDTRS level in a discovery set of 2/3 of the participants from DIRECT-Protect 1. The identified peptides were then validated cross-sectionally in the remaining 1/3 from DIRECT-Protect 1. Thereafter, peptides identified in the discovery set were assessed in the entire DIRECT-Protect 1 and 2 cohorts and significant peptides were tested longitudinally. RESULTS Follow-up ranged 4.0-4.7 years. 24 peptides were associated with baseline DR in the discovery set. COL3A1 (seq: NTG~) and COL4A1 (seq: DGA~) were associated with baseline DR in the validation set (Rho: -.223, p < 0.001 and Rho: -.141, p = 0.024). Neither was significantly associated with end points. Assessing the 24 identified peptides in the entire cohorts, several collagen peptides were associated with baseline DR and end points; however, there was no overlap across diabetes types. CONCLUSIONS We identified several urinary peptides (mainly collagen) associated with the presence of DR, however they could not be conclusively associated with worsening of DR.
-
3.
Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients with High Arrhythmic Risk and an ICD: A Longitudinal Study.
Casale, M, Correale, M, Laterra, G, Vaccaro, V, Morabito, C, Crea, P, Signorelli, SS, Katsiki, N, Luzza, F, de Gregorio, C, et al
Clinical drug investigation. 2021;(2):169-176
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients affected by heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) receive clinical and functional beneficial effects from treatment with sacubitril/valsartan. However previous studies have shown that patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) could obtain even greater benefit, but only make up a only a small proportion of patients. In the current study we evaluated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with an ICD. METHODS Thirty-five outpatients with HFrEF (aged 60 ± 11 years, 28 were males), on optimal medical therapy were studied. All patients received an ICD at least 6 months before enrollment or were non-responders to ICD plus resynchronization (CRT-D). An open-label sacubitril/valsartan treatment was established at the maximum tolerated dose. Clinical assessment, 6-min walk test (6MWT) and echocardiography, were performed during follow-up at 90, 180, and 360 days. Quality of life score and perceived fatigue on exercise were assessed. RESULTS Clinical conditions dramatically improved in most patients, especially within the first 6 months of therapy (76 % were in NYHA-I and 24 % in NYHA-II at the end of study vs 71 % NYHA-II and 29 % NYHA III at enrollment, p < 0.001). Quality of life and exercise performance significantly improved according to N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) serum levels lowering. Walking distance at 6MWT increased from 274 ± 97 to 389 ± 53 m and walking speed from 0.74 ± 0.27 to 1.07 ± 0.15 m/s (p < 0.001), while oxygen saturation did not differ significantly (from 90 ± 1 % to 91 ± 2 %). More gradual was left ventricular reverse remodeling. Ejection fraction improved mildly (+ 5 points %, p < 0.001). Global longitudinal strain and diastolic function were also assessed over time. CONCLUSION Sacubitril/valsartan therapy for HFrEF may lead to significant clinical and functional improvements even in patients with ICD at greater arrhythmic risk. Clinical improvement is obtained within the first 6 months of treatment while reverse remodeling needs more time.
-
4.
Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan versus Ramipril in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
Rezq, A, Saad, M, El Nozahi, M
The American journal of cardiology. 2021;:7-13
Abstract
The role of sacubitril and/or valsartan in patient with heart failure (HF) is established. Whether sacubitril and/or valsartan plays a role in improving outcomes in patients after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. The current study aims to comparing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril and/or valsartan versus ramipril in post-STEMI patients. Patients presenting with STEMI were randomized to receive either sacubitril and/or valsartan or ramipril after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The main efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days and 6 months, defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and HF hospitalizations. Multiple secondary clinical safety and efficacy endpoints were examined. A total of 200 patients were randomized from January 2018 to March 2019, mean age 54.5±10.4, 87% men, 75% presented with anterior wall STEMI. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were comparable between groups. The primary endpoint of MACE was similar with sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril at 30 days (p = 0.18); however, at 6 months, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with significant reduction of MACE (p = 0.005), mainly driven by reduction in HF hospitalizations (18% vs 36%, OR 0.40, 95% 0.22 to 0.75; p = 0.004). At 6 months, LV ejection fraction was higher with sacubitril/valsartan (46.8±12.5% vs 42.09±13.8%; p = 0.012), with improved LV remodelling (LV end diastolic dimension 50.6±3.9 mm vs 53.2±2.7 mm, p = 0.047; and LV end systolic dimension 36.1±3.4 mm versus 39.9±6.3 mm, p = 0.001) compared with ramipril. No difference in other efficacy or safety clinical endpoints was observed. In conclusion, early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan may offer clinical benefit and improvement in myocardial remodelling in post-STEMI patients.
-
5.
Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.
Salah, HM, Fudim, M, Al'Aref, SJ, Khan, MS, Almarzooq, ZI, Devabhaktuni, SR, Mentz, RJ, Butler, J, Greene, SJ
The American journal of cardiology. 2021;:165-168
-
6.
A study of the sequential treatment of acute heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan by recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide: A randomized controlled trial.
Pang, Z, Pan, C, Yao, Z, Ren, Y, Tian, L, Cui, J, Liu, X, Zhang, L, Chen, Y
Medicine. 2021;(16):e25621
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects of the basic treatment for heart failure and sequential treatment with rh-brain natriuretic peptide (rhBNP) alone or the combination of rhBNP and sacubitril/valsartan. Cardiac structure, pulmonary artery pressure, inflammation and oxidative stress in patients with acute heart failure were evaluated.Three hundred patients with acute heart failure were included. According to the random number table method, the patients were divided into 3 groups of 100 patients per group: the standard treatment group (treated with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, β receptor blocker, and corticosteroid antagonist), rhBNP group (basic treatment combined with rhBNP) and sequential treatment group (basic treatment for heart failure combined with rhBNP followed by sacubitril/valsartan). The changes in NT-probrain natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, cardiac troponin T (cTnT) levels, cardiac structure, pulmonary artery pressure, and the levels inflammatory factors and oxidative stress factors were compared among the 3 groups at 1, 4, 12, and 36 weeks after treatment.The sequential treatment group displayed superior outcomes than the standard treatment group and the rhBNP group in terms of left atrium diameter, left ventricular end diastolic volume, left ventricular ejection fraction, pulmonary artery pressure, NT-proBNP levels, and cTnT levels, which respond to damage to the heart structure and myocardium. This result may be related to the decreased levels of inflammatory factors and the correction of oxidative stress imbalance.Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduce the serum levels of inflammatory factors in patients with acute heart failure while decreasing the levels of oxidizing factors and increasing the levels of antioxidant factors. These changes may be one of the explanations for the better cardiac structure and better pulmonary artery pressure observed in the sequential treatment group.
-
7.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
10.
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.