Reverse remodelling by sacubitril/valsartan predicts the prognosis in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Therapy duration and improvement of ventricular function in de novo heart failure: the Heart Failure Optimization study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In patients with de novo heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is expected to occur when started on guideline-recommended medical therapy. However, improvement may not be completed within 90 days.

METHODS

Patients with HFrEF and LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator between 2017 and 2022 from 68 sites were enrolled, starting with a registry phase for 3 months and followed by a study phase up to 1 year. The primary endpoints were LVEF improvement > 35% between Days 90 and 180 following guideline-recommended medical therapy initiation and the percentage of target dose reached at Days 90 and 180.

RESULTS

A total of 598 patients with de novo HFrEF [59 years (interquartile range 51-68), 27% female] entered the study phase. During the first 180 days, a significant increase in dosage of beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was observed (P < .001). At Day 90, 46% [95% confidence interval (CI) 41%-50%] of study phase patients had LVEF improvement > 35%; 46% (95% CI 40%-52%) of those with persistently low LVEF at Day 90 had LVEF improvement > 35% by Day 180, increasing the total rate of improvement > 35% to 68% (95% CI 63%-72%). In 392 patients followed for 360 days, improvement > 35% was observed in 77% (95% CI 72%-81%) of the patients. Until Day 90, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias were observed in 24 wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers (1.8%). After 90 days, no sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia occurred in wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous optimization of guideline-recommended medical therapy for at least 180 days in HFrEF is associated with additional LVEF improvement > 35%, allowing for better decision-making regarding preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

Irreversible myocardial injury attenuates the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

Despite the established benefits of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) across various etiologies, there are controversies regarding the effects of ARNI in patients with irreversible myocardial injury. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of irreversible myocardial injury on the benefits of ARNI treatment in patients with HFrEF, consisted of both ischemic and non-ischemic etiologies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective single-center study including 409 consecutive patients with HFrEF treated with ARNI between March 2017 and May 2020. Irreversible myocardial injury was defined as nonviable myocardium without contractile reserve, which suggests a limited potential for recovery of left ventricular function and geometry. At baseline, irreversible myocardial injury was observed in 129 (31.5%) patients. Composite outcome was cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 56 (43.4%) and 61 (21.8%) patients with and without irreversible myocardial injury, respectively. On multivariable analysis, irreversible injury presence, but not ischemic etiology, was an independent predictor of composite outcome (hazard ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.33-3.49). Mediation analysis revealed that the increased risk of the composite outcome due to irreversible myocardial injury was mediated by attenuated LV reverse remodeling (Z value = 2.02, P = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of irreversible myocardial injury was significantly associated with the response to ARNI treatment in patients with HFrEF, regardless of etiology.

Cardiac reverse remodelling by imaging parameters with recent changes to guideline medical therapy in heart failure

Recently established heart failure therapies, including sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitors, and cardiac resynchronization therapy, have led to both clinical and structural improvements. Reverse remodelling describes the structural and functional responses to therapy and has been shown to correlate with patients' clinical response, acting as a biomarker for treatment success. The introduction of these new therapeutic agents in addition to advances in non-invasive cardiac imaging has led to an expansion in the evaluation and the validation of cardiac reverse remodelling. Methods including volumetric changes as well as strain and myocardial work have all been shown to be non-invasive end-points of reverse remodelling, correlating with clinical outcomes. Our review summarizes the current available evidence on reverse remodelling in heart failure by the non-invasive cardiac imaging techniques, in particular transthoracic echocardiography.

Astragaloside IV derivative HHQ16 ameliorates infarction-induced hypertrophy and heart failure through degradation of lncRNA4012/9456

Reversing ventricular remodeling represents a promising treatment for the post-myocardial infarction (MI) heart failure (HF). Here, we report a novel small molecule HHQ16, an optimized derivative of astragaloside IV, which effectively reversed infarction-induced myocardial remodeling and improved cardiac function by directly acting on the cardiomyocyte to reverse hypertrophy. The effect of HHQ16 was associated with a strong inhibition of a newly discovered Egr2-affiliated transcript lnc9456 in the heart. While minimally expressed in normal mouse heart, lnc9456 was dramatically upregulated in the heart subjected to left anterior descending coronary artery ligation (LADL) and in cardiomyocytes subjected to hypertrophic stimulation. The critical role of lnc9456 in cardiomyocyte hypertrophy was confirmed by specific overexpression and knockout in vitro. A physical interaction between lnc9456 and G3BP2 increased NF-κB nuclear translocation, triggering hypertrophy-related cascades. HHQ16 physically bound to lnc9456 with a high-affinity and induced its degradation. Cardiomyocyte-specific lnc9456 overexpression induced, but knockout prevented LADL-induced, cardiac hypertrophy and dysfunction. HHQ16 reversed the effect of lnc9456 overexpression while lost its protective role when lnc9456 was deleted, further confirming lnc9456 as the bona fide target of HHQ16. We further identified the human ortholog of lnc9456, also an Egr2-affiliated transcript, lnc4012. Similarly, lnc4012 was significantly upregulated in hypertrophied failing hearts of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy. HHQ16 also specifically bound to lnc4012 and caused its degradation and antagonized its hypertrophic effects. Targeted degradation of pathological increased lnc4012/lnc9456 by small molecules might serve as a novel promising strategy to regress infarction-induced cardiac hypertrophy and HF.

Hypotension at heart failure discharge: Should it be a limiting factor for drug titration?

BACKGROUND

Medical treatment in Heart Failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; LVEF ≤40%) has shifted towards quadruple therapy. Maximum tolerated dose is the goal, yet no hypotension's cut-off point has been specified. In this work, we analyze the impact of intensive drug titration in clinical events, focusing on low blood pressure (BP) patients at hospital discharge.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Retrospective analysis of 713 patients with HFrEF discharged after an acute HF event (mean LVEF 30 ± 5%). Mean SBP was 112.4 ± 16.5 mmHg and 50.6% were discharged on triple therapy. We considered hypotension as a Systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100 mmHg (21.7% of patients, mean SBP was 112.4 ± 16.5 mmHg) and codified the intensity of drug therapy in 5 stages from untreated to very high therapy intensity. The impact of the intensity of treatment was analysed with a propensity score and increasing the intensity was associated in the whole cohort with a reduction of the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and HF readmission, (HR 0.69; CI95% 0.57-0.85, p < 0.001) and benefit in mortality was maintained for SBP < 100 mmHg (HR 0.42; CI95% 0.22-0.82; p = 0.011). Moreover, therapy intensity was clearly associated with lower risk of HF-hospitalization and death after the additional regression, considering SBP as a covariate, in the whole cohort (HR 0.70; CI95% 0.57-0.85; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective cohort analysis, patients with HFrEF and an acute-HF admission, intensive drug dose titration was related to better outcomes, even in patients with low blood pressure at hospital discharge. Therefore, hypotension is not a contraindication for NHB uptitration.

The emerging role of sacubitril/valsartan in pulmonary hypertension with heart failure

Pulmonary hypertension due to left heart disease (PH-LHD) represents approximately 65%-80% of all patients with PH. The progression, prognosis, and mortality of individuals with left heart failure (LHF) are significantly influenced by PH and right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. Consequently, cardiologists should devote ample attention to the interplay between HF and PH. Patients with PH and HF may not receive optimal benefits from the therapeutic effects of prostaglandins, endothelin receptor antagonists, or phosphodiesterase inhibitors, which are specific drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Sacubitril/valsartan, the angiotensin receptor II blocker-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), was recommended as the first-line therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) by the 2021 European Society of Cardiology Guidelines. Although ARNI is effective in treating left ventricular (LV) enlargement and lower ejection fraction, its efficacy in treating individuals with PH and HF remains underexplored. Considering its vasodilatory effect at the pre-capillary level and a natriuretic drainage role at the post-capillary level, ARNI is believed to have a broad range of potential applications in treating PH-LHD. This review discusses the fundamental pathophysiological connections between PH and HF, emphasizing the latest research and potential benefits of ARNI in PH with various types of LHF and RV dysfunction.

Regression of cardiac hypertrophy in health and disease: mechanisms and therapeutic potential

Left ventricular hypertrophy is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Although reverse ventricular remodelling was long thought to be irreversible, evidence from the past three decades indicates that this process is possible with many existing heart disease therapies. The regression of pathological hypertrophy is associated with improved cardiac function, quality of life and long-term health outcomes. However, less than 50% of patients respond favourably to most therapies, and the reversibility of remodelling is influenced by many factors, including age, sex, BMI and disease aetiology. Cardiac hypertrophy also occurs in physiological settings, including pregnancy and exercise, although in these cases, hypertrophy is associated with normal or improved ventricular function and is completely reversible postpartum or with cessation of training. Studies over the past decade have identified the molecular features of hypertrophy regression in health and disease settings, which include modulation of protein synthesis, microRNAs, metabolism and protein degradation pathways. In this Review, we summarize the evidence for hypertrophy regression in patients with current first-line pharmacological and surgical interventions. We further discuss the molecular features of reverse remodelling identified in cell and animal models, highlighting remaining knowledge gaps and the essential questions for future investigation towards the goal of designing specific therapies to promote regression of pathological hypertrophy.

Comprehensive analysis of the RNA transcriptome expression profiles and construction of the ceRNA network in heart failure patients with sacubitril/valsartan therapeutic heterogeneity after acute myocardial infarction

Sacubitril/valsartan has a noteworthy advantage in improving ventricular remodelling, as well as reducing cardiovascular mortality and the rate of heart failure (HF) readmission. However, clinically, some patients with HF still have low sensitivity to sacubitril/valsartan, indicating sacubitril/valsartan resistance (SVR). A total of 46 patients with HF after AMI (23 SVR and 23 non-sacubitril/valsartan resistance (NSVR)) were selected. Five SVR and 5 matched NSVR samples were screened for differentially expressed ncRNAs along with mRNAs. A total of 124 differentially expressed miRNAs, 137 circRNAs, 237 lncRNAs and 50 mRNAs were screened by RNA sequencing technology. After quantitative real-time PCR (qRT‒PCR) verification of selected biomarkers in 18 pairs of samples, we found that for patients with SVR, hsa-miR-543, hsa-miR-642b-5p, hsa-miR-760, hsa_circ_0137499, ENST00000474394, ENST00000528337, E2F1, NEAT1, and YTHDF2 were upregulated, and hsa-miR-424-5p, hsa-miR-21-3p, hsa_circRNA_0003275, hsa_circRNA_0004494, hsa_circ_0093522, ENST00000467951, ENST00000558177, ACTA2, ANPEP, and CAMP were downregulated. Then, with the help of our constructed ceRNA network and functional annotation enrichment, we speculated that inflammatory pathways (such as the apelin signalling pathway) and lipid metabolism pathways (such as fatty acid metabolism) may be involved in the regulation of SVR. These discoveries lay a foundation for further mechanistic research and provide a direction for individualized drug administration.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy has persisted over the clinical benefits of low-dose sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure (HF).

HYPOTHESIS

Low-dose sacubitril/valsartan might also be effective and safe in HF patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases including PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane Library were systematically retrieved from inception to August 5, 2021. Review manager 5.4 and Stata 15.1 were employed in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Key efficacy outcomes of interest included HF hospitalization, all-cause mortality, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), together with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. The safety outcome was systolic blood pressure (SBP). The grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach was conducted to evaluate the quality of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 1269 studies were screened and 9 real-world studies met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis, with 1697 participants. Compared with low-dose sacubitril/valsartan, high-dose sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.61, p < .0001) and the risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11-0.47, p < .0001). However, there were no appreciable differences in improvements of NYHA (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.15-2.35, p = .45), changes of LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 2.73%, 95% CI: -2.24% to 7.7%, p = .28), changes of NT-proBNP (MD: 43.09, 95% CI: -28.41 to 114.59, p = .24) and changes of SBP (MD: 3.01, 95% CI: -4.62 to 10.64, p = .44) between groups with low-dose and high-dose sacubitril/valsartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with high-dose sacubitril/valsartan, low-dose sacubitril/valsartan was associated with increased risks of HF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. However, no distinct between-group differences in improvements of NYHA, changes of LVEF, changes of NT-proBNP and changes of SBP were observed.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Real-World Experience from Italy (the REAL.IT Study)

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces heart failure (HF)-related hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality in PARADIGM-HF and has become a foundational treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, data of its routine real-world use are limited, and evidence from Italian settings is lacking. The REAL.IT study aimed to characterize the demographics, pharmacotherapy, clinical characteristics and outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan-treated Italian patients with HFrEF. Electronic medical records of patients initiating sacubitril/valsartan from October 2016 to June 2019 at nine specialized hospital outpatient HF centers across Italy were reviewed. Overall, 924 adults (mean age 64.5 years, 84.6% male) were included. At baseline, 38.7% had an ischemic HF etiology, 45.9% hypertension, 23.2% atrial fibrillation, 25.4% diabetes mellitus, 26.1% an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 31.9% coronary artery bypass grafting. There were no clear patterns of patient selection over time. During follow-up, NYHA class improved in 37.5% of patients after a mean of 5.3 ± 3.8 months; 36.1% and 16.7% of patients were in NYHA class III during characterization and after one year of follow-up, respectively. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved ≥5% in 56.3% of patients at one year; 39.7% had ≥30% reduction of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; 2.2% had hyperkalemia during characterization and 2.6% during follow-up; and 3.8% had hypotension during characterization and 12% during follow-up. A total of 50 (5.8%) of patients had device implantation (ICD/CRT) during follow-up. HF-related hospitalization was recorded in 19.6% of patients during follow-up; 3.8% of patients died, approximately 1.3% from cardiovascular causes. Our real-world data confirm the favorable effectiveness and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan observed in pivotal randomized controlled trials.

Temporal trend and potential impact of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors on transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) should be considered in patients with heart failure and secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) have been demonstrated to improve prognosis in heart failure. We aimed to evaluate the impact ARNIs on patient selection and outcomes.

METHODS

The population of the Spanish TEER prospective registry (March 2012 to January 2021) was divided into 2 groups: a) TEER before the ARNI era (n=450) and b) TEER after the recommendation of ARNIs by European Guidelines (n=639), with further analysis according to intake (n=52) or not (n=587) of ARNIs.

RESULTS

A total of 1089 consecutive patients underwent TEER for secondary MR. In the ARNI era, there was a reduction in left ventricle dilation (82mL vs 100mL, P=.025), and better function (35% vs 38%, P=.011). At 2 years of follow-up, mortality (10.6% vs 17.3%, P <.001) and heart failure readmissions (16.6% vs 27.8%, P <.001) were lower in the ARNI era, but not recurrent MR. In the ARNI era, 1- and 2-year mortality were similar irrespective of ARNI intake but patients on ARNIs had a lower risk of readmission+mortality at 2 years (OR, 0.369; 95%CI, 0.137-0.992; P=.048), better NYHA class, and lower recurrence of MR III-IV (1.9% vs 14.3%, P=.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Better patient selection for TEER has been achieved in the last few years with a parallel improvement in outcomes. The use of ARNIs was associated with a significant reduction in overall events, better NYHA class, and lower MR recurrence.

ARNI or ARB Treats Residual Left Ventricular Remodelling after Surgery for Valvular Regurgitation: ReReRe study protocol

AIMS

Patients with persistent or de novo left ventricular (LV) dilation and/or reduced ejection fraction (EF) after correction for primary aortic (AR) or mitral (MR) regurgitation (i.e. residual LV remodelling) have not been well studied with regard to guideline-directed medical therapy after successful aetiology-reversing surgery. We aim to (i) compare the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in promoting LV reverse remodelling and (ii) explore the safety of medication withdrawal after LV recovery.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The ReReRe study is a multicentre, randomized, open-label, parallel trial that consists of two consecutive parts. A total of 371 patients with an LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) > 60 mm or LVEF < 50%, assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) 7-14 days after valve surgery for significant AR or primary MR will be enrolled. The 1^st randomization into the sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan groups and structured follow-up (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after randomization) will be conducted to observe the primary objective as the rate of complete recovery of LV remodelling (i.e. LVEDD < 55 mm and LVEF ≥ 60% by TTE at two consecutive visits). Those who have complete recovery of LV remodelling will be enrolled in Study Part 2; consequently, they will receive the 2^nd randomization into the medication withdrawal or maintenance group and 6-monthly visits for the observation of the primary objective as the rate of LV remodelling relapse (LVEDD > 60 mm or LVEF < 50%). The secondary objectives include the rate of composite clinical outcomes and the degree of change in 6-min walk distance and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The ReReRe study will provide new evidence for the treatment of patients with residual LV remodelling after curable unloaded surgery, as well as the duration of treatment. The study results will fill the gap in identifying an appropriate medical therapy regimen for this group of patients and perhaps for those with reversible aetiologies of heart failure.

Predictors of sacubitril/valsartan high dose tolerability in a real world population with HFrEF

AIMS

The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) demonstrated to be superior to enalapril in reducing hospitalizations, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in patients with ambulatory heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in particular when it is maximally up-titrated. Unfortunately, the target dose is achieved in less than 50% of HFrEF patients, thus undermining the beneficial effects on the outcomes. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the role of Sac/Val and its titration dose on reverse cardiac remodelling and determine which echocardiographic index best predicts the up-titration success.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From January 2020 to June 2021, we retrospectively identified 95 patients (65.6 [59.1-72.8] years; 15.8% females) with chronic HFrEF who were prescribed Sac/Val from the HF Clinics of 5 Italian University Hospitals and evaluated the tolerability of Sac/Val high dose (the ability of the patient to achieve and stably tolerate the maximum dose) as the primary endpoint in the cohort. We used a multivariable logistic regression analysis, with a stepwise backward selection method, to determine the independent predictors of Sac/Val maximum dose tolerability, using, as candidate predictors, only variables with a P-value < 0.1 in the univariate analyses. Candidate predictors identified for the multivariable backward logistic regression analysis were age, sex, body mass index (BMI), chronic kidney disease (CKD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dyslipidaemia, atrial fibrillation, systolic blood pressure (SBP), baseline tolerability of ACEi/ARBs maximum dose, left ventricle global longitudinal strain (LVgLS), LV ejection fraction (EF), tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricle (RV) fractional area change (FAC), RV global and free wall longitudinal strain (RVgLS and RV-FW-LS). After the multivariable analysis, only one categorical (ACEi/ARBs maximum dose at baseline) and three continuous (younger age, higher SBP, and higher TAPSE), resulted significantly associated with the study outcome variable with a strong discriminatory capacity (area under the curve 0.874, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.794-0.954) to predict maximum Sac/Val dose tolerability.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study is the first to analyse the potential role of echocardiography and, in particular, of RV dysfunction, measured by TAPSE, in predicting Sac/Val maximum dose tolerability. Therefore, patients with RV dysfunction (baseline TAPSE <16 mm, in our cohort) might benefit from a different strategy to titrate Sac/Val, such as starting from the lowest dose and/or waiting for a more extended period of observation before attempting with the higher doses.

Dynamic Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: Current Evidence and Challenges for the Future

Heart failure (HF) is a challenging situation in healthcare worldwide. Secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR) is a common condition in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and tends to be increasingly associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes as the severity of SMR increases. It is worth noting that SMR can deteriorate dynamically under stress. Over the past three decades, the characteristics of dynamic SMR have been studied. Dynamic SMR contributes to the reduction in exercise capacity and adverse clinical outcomes. Current guidelines refer to the indication of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) for significant SMR based on data from the Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation (COAPT) trial if symptomatic despite optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but nonpharmacological treatment for dynamic SMR remains challenging. In HFrEF patients with LV dyssynchrony and dynamic SMR, CRT can improve LV dyssynchrony and subsequently attenuate SMR at rest and during exercise. Also, a recent study suggests that TEER with GDMT and CRT is more effective in symptomatic patients with HFrEF and dynamic SMR than GDMT and CRT alone. Further studies are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of nonpharmacological treatments for dynamic SMR. In this review, current evidence and challenges for the future of dynamic SMR are discussed.

Left ventricular reverse remodelling and its predictors in non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

Adverse remodelling following an initial insult is the hallmark of heart failure (HF) development and progression. It is manifested as changes in size, shape, and function of the myocardium. While cardiac remodelling may be compensatory in the short term, further neurohumoral activation and haemodynamic overload drive this deleterious process that is associated with impaired prognosis. However, in some patients, the changes may be reversed. Left ventricular reverse remodelling (LVRR) is characterized as a decrease in chamber volume and normalization of shape associated with improvement in both systolic and diastolic function. LVRR might occur spontaneously or more often in response to therapeutic interventions that either remove the initial stressor or alleviate some of the mechanisms that contribute to further deterioration of the failing heart. Although the process of LVRR in patients with new‐onset HF may take up to 2 years after initiating treatment, there is a significant portion of patients who do not improve despite optimal therapy, which has serious clinical implications when considering treatment escalation towards more aggressive options. On the contrary, in patients that achieve delayed improvement in cardiac function and architecture, waiting might avoid untimely implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator implantation. Therefore, prognostication of successful LVRR based on clinical, imaging, and biomarker predictors is of utmost importance. LVRR has a positive impact on prognosis. However, reverse remodelled hearts continue to have abnormal features. In fact, most of the molecular, cellular, interstitial, and genome expression abnormalities remain and a susceptibility to dysfunction redevelopment under biomechanical stress persists in most patients. Hence, a distinction should be made between reverse remodelling and true myocardial recovery. In this comprehensive review, current evidence on LVRR, its predictors, and implications on prognostication, with a specific focus on HF patients with non‐ischaemic cardiomyopathy, as well as on novel drugs, is presented.

Add-on Therapy With Sacubitril/Valsartan and Clinical Outcomes in CRT-D Nonresponder Patients

ABSTRACT

No data on the add-on sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) therapy among cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) nonresponder patients are currently available in literature. We conducted a prospective observational study including 190 CRT-D nonresponder patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction despite the optimal medical therapy from at least 1 year. The primary endpoint was the rate of additional responders (left ventricular end-systolic volume reduction >15%) at 12 months from the introduction of S/V therapy. At the end of the 12 months follow-up, 37 patients (19.5%) were deemed as "additional responders" to the combination use of CRT + S/V therapy. The only clinical predictor of additional response was a lower left ventricular ejection fraction [OR 0.881 (0.815-0.953), P = 0.002] at baseline. At 12 months follow-up, there were significant improvements in heart failure (HF) symptoms and functional status [New York Heart Association 2 (2-3) vs. 1 (1-2), P < 0.001; physical activity duration/day: 10 (8-12) vs. 13 (10-18) hours, P < 0.001]. Compared with the 12 months preceding S/V introduction, there were significant reductions in the rate of HF rehospitalization (35.5% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), in atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation burden [6.0 (5.0-8.0) % vs. 0 (0-2.0) %, P < 0.001] and in the proportions of patients experiencing ventricular arrhythmias (21.6% vs. 6.3%; P < 0.001). Our results indicate that S/V add-on therapy in CRT-D nonresponder patients is associated with 19.5% of additional responders, a reduction in HF symptoms and rehospitalizations, AF burden, and ventricular arrhythmias.

Combined effects of ARNI and SGLT2 inhibitors in diabetic patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium–glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) have shown benefits in diabetic patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, their combined effect has not been revealed. We retrospectively identified diabetic patients with HFrEF who were prescribed an ARNI and/or SGLT2i. The patients were divided into groups treated with both ARNI and SGLT2i (group 1), ARNI but not SGLT2i (group 2), SGLT2i but not ARNI (group 3), and neither ARNI nor SGLT2i (group 4). After propensity score-matching, the occurrence of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), cardiovascular mortality, and changes in echocardiographic parameters were analyzed. Of the 206 matched patients, 92 (44.7%) had to undergo HHF and 43 (20.9%) died of cardiovascular causes during a median 27.6 months of follow-up. Patients in group 1 exhibited a lower risk of HHF and cardiovascular mortality compared to those in the other groups. Improvements in the left ventricular ejection fraction and E/e′ were more pronounced in group 1 than in groups 2, 3 and 4. These echocardiographic improvements were more prominent after the initiation of ARNI, compare to the initiation of SGLT2i. In diabetic patients with HFrEF, combination of ARNI and SGT2i showed significant improvement in cardiac function and prognosis. ARNI-SGLT2i combination therapy may improve the clinical course of HFrEF in diabetic patients.

Cardiac Reverse Remodelling by 2D and 3D Echocardiography in Heart Failure Patients Treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan

In terms of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V)-induced changes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) via three-dimensional (3D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and S/V effects based on HF aetiology, data are lacking. We prospectively enrolled 51 HFrEF patients (24 ischaemic, 27 non-ischaemic). At baseline and at 6-month follow-up (6MFU) after S/V treatment optimisation, we assessed the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and cardiac remodelling by two-dimensional (2D) and 3DTTE. In non-ischaemic patients, 2D and 3DTTE showed an improvement in left ventricular (LV) size and biventricular function at 6MFU vs. baseline: 3D-LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) 103 ± 30 vs. 125 ± 32 mL/m² (p < 0.05), 3D-LV ejection fraction (EF) 40 ± 9 vs. 32 ± 5% (p < 0.05), right ventricular (RV) 3D-EF 48.4 ± 6.5 vs. 44.3 ± 7.5% (p < 0.05); only the 3D method detected RV size reduction: 3D-RVEDV 63 ± 27 vs. 71 ± 30 mL/m² (p < 0.05). In ischaemic patients, only 3DTTE showed biventricular size and LV function improvement: 3D-LVEDV 112 ± 29 vs. 121 ± 27 mL/m² (p < 0.05), 3D-LVEF 35 ± 6 vs. 32 ± 5% (p < 0.05), 3D-RVEDV 57 ± 11 vs. 63 ± 14 mL/m² (p < 0.05); RV function did not ameliorate. In both ischaemic and non-ischaemic patients, diastolic function and NT-proBNP significantly improved. In HFrEF patients treated with S/V, 3DTTE helps to ascertain subtle changes in heart chambers’ size and function, which have a major impact on HFrEF prognosis. S/V has significantly different effects on LV function in non-ischaemic vs. ischaemic patients.

Echocardiographic changes in elderly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after sacubitril-valsartan treatment

BACKGROUND

To observe the changes of cardiac structure and function in elderly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after taking Sacubitril-Valsartan for 6 months.

METHODS

Elderly patients with HFrEF hospitalized in Beijing Anzhen Hospital from May 2019 to May 2020 were enrolled continuously in the single-center, retrospective, cohort study. Patients' Echocardiographs were examined for the evaluation of their cardiac condition. The primary outcomes were changes in cardiac function and structure at the sixth month after discharge, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), left atrial diameter (LAD), interventricular septum thickness (IVST), left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWT) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI).

RESULTS

A total of 336 elderly patients with HFrEF were enrolled in this study, with an average age of 69.8 years, including 268 males (79.8%). Compared to the admission levels, the LVEF after taking Sacubitril-Valsartan for 6 months was markedly improved (48.49% vs. 39.07%, P<0.01), while the LVEDD (54.70 vs. 59.97 mm, P<0.01), LVESD (40.59 vs. 47.59 mm, P<0.01), LAD (48.59 vs. 52.45 mm, P<0.01) and LVMI (105.16 vs. 125.20 g/m2, P<0.01) decreased. Similar results were obtained in the subgroups of patients who were diagnosed with HFrEF on admission. In men, NHYA II and NHYA III subgroups, cardiac function improved significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril-Valsartan can improve the cardiac function and structure of elderly patients with HFrEF.

Reverse remodelling by sacubitril/valsartan predicts the prognosis in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aims

Despite well‐established benefits of sacubitril/valsartan for cardiac reverse remodelling and the prognosis of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there are some patients with limited therapeutic response, even with optimal therapy. We assessed the treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF, focusing on the association between reverse remodelling and the prognosis.

Methods and results

Using a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan, we compared the time trajectory of cardiac function in 415 patients (1258 echocardiograms), according to the occurrence of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for HF during a median follow‐up of 19.1 (interquartile range, 10.9–27.6) months. A higher sacubitril/valsartan dose was associated with a better prognosis, whereas advanced age, diabetes, left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, left atrial enlargement, and pulmonary hypertension were associated with a worse prognosis. Patients without an event (n = 337; 81.2%) showed LV reverse remodelling (LV ejection fraction ≥45% or LV end‐systolic volume reduction by 15% from baseline), which was typically observed within 6 months of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. Reverse remodelling achievement was significantly associated with a better prognosis. However, patients without reverse remodelling had a worse prognosis, as poor as that in patients with HFrEF not treated with sacubitril/valsartan.

Conclusions

In patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan, LV reverse remodelling reflects the treatment response and predicts the prognosis, whereas a lack of reverse remodelling indicates the lack of treatment benefits. Prediction and assessment of reverse remodelling may facilitate the selection of patients with greater benefits by sacubitril/valsartan.