Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan versus Ramipril in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Efficacy of early administration of sacubitril/valsartan after coronary artery revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation: a randomized controlled trial

Effects of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) on ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure, especially heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), are better than those of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI). Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by mitral regurgitation exacerbates ventricular remodeling and increases the risk of heart failure. There is limited evidence on the effects of early administration of ARNI in patients with AMI complicated by mitral regurgitation. The aim of this trial was to examine the effectiveness and the safety of early administration of sacubitril/valsartan after coronary artery revascularization in patients with AMI complicated by moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation. This was a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, controlled trial. From June 2021 to June 2022, we enrolled 142 consecutive patients with AMI complicated by moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation and followed them for 12 months. The patients received standard treatment for AMI and were randomly assigned to receive ARNI or benazepril. The primary efficacy end points were the differences in mitral regurgitant jet area (MRJA), mitral regurgitant volume (MRV), concentration of n-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume and end-systolic volume (LVEDV and LVESV) between groups and within groups at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary end points included the rates of heart failure hospitalization, all-cause mortality, refractory angina, malignant arrhythmias, recurrent myocardial infarction, and stroke. Safety end points included the rates of hyperkalemia, renal dysfunction, hypotension, angioedema, and cough. The ARNI group had significantly lower NT-proBNP levels than the benazepril group at 1 month and later (P < 0.001). MRJA and MRV significantly improved in the ARNI group compared with the benazepril group at 12 months (MRJA: - 3.21 ± 2.18 cm2 vs. - 1.83 ± 2.81 cm2, P < 0.05; MRV: - 27.22 ± 15.22 mL vs. - 13.67 ± 21.02 mL, P < 0.001). The ARNI group also showed significant reductions in LVEDV and LVESV (P < 0.05) and improvement in LVEF (P < 0.05). Secondary end point analysis showed a significantly higher rate of heart failure hospitalization in the benazepril group compared with the ARNI group (HR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.12-3.68, P = 0.021). Safety end point analysis showed a higher rate of hypotension in the ARNI group (P < 0.05). Early use of sacubitril/valsartan after coronary artery revascularization in patients with AMI complicated by moderate-to-severe mitral regurgitation can significantly reduce mitral regurgitation, improve ventricular remodeling, and decrease heart failure hospitalization. Nevertheless, caution is needed to avoid hypotension. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100054255) registered on December 11, 2021.

Effect of sacubitril-valsartan on left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Sacubitril-valsartan has been widely reported for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and improving left ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the effect of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate whether sacubitril-valsartan could reverse left ventricular remodeling and reduce cardiovascular adverse events in AMI patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).

Materials and methods

Two researchers independently retrieved the relevant literature from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang database. The retrieval time was limited from inception to 1 June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analyzed.

Results

In total, 21 RCTs involving 2442 AMI patients who underwent PPCI for revascularization were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), sacubitril-valsartan treatment in AMI patients after PPCI significantly reduced left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.11, 95%CI: -4.05∼-2.16, p < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (WMD -7.76, 95%CI: -12.24∼-3.27, p = 0.001), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (WMD -6.80, 95%CI: -9.45∼-4.15, p < 0.001) and left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) (WMD -2.53, 95%CI: -5.30-0.24, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis according to the dose of sacubitril-valsartan yielded a similar result. Meanwhile, PPCI patients using sacubitril-valsartan therapy showed lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.28-0.46, p < 0.001), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.30-0.98, p = 0.041) and HF (OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.26-0.47, p < 0.001) without increasing the risk of renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, or symptomatic hypotension. At the same time, the change of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 3.91, 95%CI: 3.41-4.41, p < 0.001), 6 min walk test (6MWT) (WMD 43.56, 95%CI: 29.37-57.76, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP level (WMD -130.27, 95%CI: -159.14∼-101.40, p < 0.001) were statistically significant.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our meta-analysis indicates that compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril-valsartan may be superior to reverse left ventricular remodeling, improve cardiac function, and effectively reduce the risk of MACE, myocardial reinfarction, and HF in AMI patients after PPCI during follow-up without increasing the risk of adverse reactions including renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, and symptomatic hypotension.

Improved heart function and cardiac remodelling following sacubitril/valsartan in acute coronary syndrome with HF

AIMS

This study sought to assess the effect of treatment of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) on improving cardiac function and reversing cardiac remodelling in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) complicated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled 275 ACS patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after PCI. The patients were divided into the routine and S/V groups according to the treatment drugs. The symptoms, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations, echocardiographic parameters [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI)], major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and adverse reactions were recorded at baseline and 6 months after treatment when a clinical follow-up was performed. The S/V group was further divided into prespecified subgroups including unstable angina (UA) group, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) group, and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) group according to the type of ACS. We analysed the changes in LVEF, LVMI, LVEDVI, LVESVI, and NT-proBNP in both groups and evaluated the correlation between the changes in the above variables (ΔLVEF, ΔLVMI, ΔLVEDVI, ΔLVESVI, and ΔNT-proBNP). Cox regression model was used to assess the independent risk factors of MACE. Prespecified subgroup analyses were also conducted. Compared with baseline, LVEF increased significantly (P < 0.05), NT-proBNP, LVMI, and LVESVI decreased significantly in both groups after 6 months (P < 0.05), and LVEDVI decreased significantly in the S/V group (P = 0.001). In the S/V group, ΔLVEF (t = -2.745, P = 0.006), ΔNT-proBNP (P = 0.009), ΔLVEDVI (t = 4.203, P = 0.001), and ΔLVESVI (t = 3.907, P = 0.001) were significantly improved than those in the routine group. In the S/V group, ΔLVEF was negatively correlated with ΔNT-proBNP (r = -0.244, P = 0.004), ΔLVMI (r = -0.190, P = 0.028), ΔLVEDVI (r = -0.173, P = 0.045), and ΔLVESVI (r = -0.261, P = 0.002). In Cox regression model analysis, ΔLVEF {hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.95], P = 0.003}, ΔLVEDVI [HR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.06), P = 0.013], and ΔLVESVI [HR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.08), P = 0.026] were independent risk factors for MACE. Subgroup analysis showed that ΔLVEF (t = 6.290, P = 0.001), ΔLVEDVI (t = 2.581, P = 0.011), and ΔNT-proBNP (P = 0.019) in the NSTEMI group were significantly improved than those in the UA group, ΔLVEDVI in the NSTEMI group was significantly better than that in the STEMI group (t = -3.365, P = 0.001), and ΔLVEF in the STEMI group was significantly better than that in the UA group (t = -3.928, P = 0.001). There was a significant difference in the survival probability without MACE among the three groups in the analysis of the Kaplan-Meier curve (P = 0.042). The incidence of MACE in the UA group was significantly higher than that in the NSTEMI group (32.4% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The cardiac function is improved and cardiac remodelling is reversed significantly after treatment of S/V in ACS patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after PCI, and the improvement is more obvious than the routine group. There is a significant negative correlation between the change in LVEF and the changes in NT-proBNP, LVMI, LVEDVI, and LVESVI. The increase of LVEF and the decrease of LVEDVI and LVESVI are protective factors to improve the prognosis. Patients with myocardial infarction and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction might benefit more from the initiation of S/V as first-line heart failure treatment after PCI.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With STEMI vs NSTEMI

BACKGROUND

Patients who sustain an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), remain at high risk for heart failure (HF), coronary events, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to determine whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, has impact on reducing cardiovascular events according to the type of AMI.

METHODS

The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction) trial enrolled patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and/or pulmonary congestion and at least 1 risk-enhancing factor. Patients were randomized to either sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes or incident HF. In this prespecified analysis, we stratified patients according to AMI type.

RESULTS

Of 5,661 enrolled patients, 4,291 (75.8%) had STEMI. These patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than NSTEMI patients. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk for the primary outcome was marginally higher in NSTEMI vs STEMI patients (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00-1.41), with borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). The primary composite outcome occurred at similar rates in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril in STEMI (10% vs 12%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.04; P = 0.13) and NSTEMI patients (17% vs 17%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75-1.25; P = 0.80; P interaction = 0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular death and HF in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, irrespective of the type of AMI. (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI; NCT02924727).

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.

The Safety and Efficacy of the Early Use of Sacubitril/Valsartan After Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a significant global cause of mortality, necessitating the exploration of innovative treatments against the condition. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) such as sacubitril/valsartan have demonstrated promise in managing acute heart failure (HF). However, despite favorable evidence from clinical trials for the use of sacubitril/valsartan in AMI, its overall efficacy remains a subject of debate. Hence, we conducted this review and meta-analysis, by adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and aligned with European Society of Cardiology recommendations, to compare sacubitril/valsartan with traditional ACEI/ARB treatments for AMI. We employed Review Manager 5.4 for statistical analysis, the Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 was utilized for quality assessment, and publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis. Our findings revealed that participants treated with sacubitril experienced significantly improved outcomes in terms of HF (OR=0.79; 95% CI: 0.66-0.95; p=0.01; I2=23%), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels (MD = -1.58; 95% CI: -1.78 to -1.37, p<0.00001; I2=97%), and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (OR=0.84; 95% CI: 0.72-0.99; p=0.03; I2=44%). However, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD=3.68; 95% CI: 3.35-4.01, p<0.00001; I2=71%) showed greater improvement in the control group compared to the experimental group. Our meta-analysis suggests that sacubitril offers a favorable balance between safety and effectiveness. Sacubitril significantly improved outcomes in terms of HF, MACE, and NT-proBNP levels when compared to the control group. However, improvement in LVEF was notably higher in the control group over the sacubitril/valsartan group.

The Efficacy of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Versus Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Post Myocardial Infarction: A Meta-Analysis

Acute myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the leading global healthcare emergencies, contributing to over three million global deaths. The purpose of this study is to investigate further the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in reducing the risk of heart failure (HF) in post-MI patients and providing a clear evidence-based medicine guideline for future use. An electronic database search was conducted on English databases. Eight articles were included, fulfilling our inclusion criteria, i.e., adult patients of ≥18 years with a recent diagnosis of acute MI. Pooled analysis was done using Review Manager version 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, England), and the data for each outcome were analyzed as dichotomous variables. A total of eight clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. Six studies analyzed the sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI combination. The pooled analysis reported a significant increase in the risk of hypotension (relative risk {RR}: 1.29 {1.18, 1.41}) in the sacubitril/valsartan compared to the ACEI alone group. In addition, a significant increase was observed in the left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) after using the sacubitril/valsartan combination compared to using ACEI alone (RR: 3.08 {2.68, 4.48}). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of mortality rate (RR: 0.86 {0.73, 1.02}), the risk of heart failure (RR: 0.62 {0.39, 1.00}), the frequency of recurrent MI (RR: 0.86 {0.27, 2.76}), and the mean difference of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (weighted mean difference {WMD}: -174.36 {-414.18, 65.46}) between both the groups. However, the sacubitril/valsartan combination proved to be beneficial in significantly reducing the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.64 {0.48, 0.84}) and rehospitalizations (RR: 0.53 {0.39, 0.71}) as compared to ACEI post MI. Additionally, sacubitril/valsartan and ARB's combination was reported in two studies. This led to a significant decrease in NT-proBNP concentration (WMD: -71.91 {-138.43, -5.39}) post MI in the sacubitril/valsartan combination group compared to the ARB usage alone. However, no significant difference was observed in the improvement of LVEF (WMD: 0.88 {-5.11, 6.87}) between both groups. Although the sacubitril/valsartan combination has no difference in mortality and outcomes compared to ACEI, there is evidence that using it proves to be more beneficial post MI compared to ACEI and ARB usage alone.

Cardiac Reverse Remodeling in Ischemic Heart Disease with Novel Therapies for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Despite the improvements in the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) and acute myocardial infarction (MI) over the past 20 years, ischemic heart disease (IHD) continues to be the most common cause of heart failure (HF). In clinical trials, over 70% of patients diagnosed with HF had IHD as the underlying cause. Furthermore, IHD predicts a worse outcome for patients with HF, leading to a substantial increase in late morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. In recent years, new pharmacological therapies have emerged for the treatment of HF, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, selective cardiac myosin activators, and oral soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators, demonstrating clear or potential benefits in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. Interventional strategies such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, cardiac contractility modulation, or baroreflex activation therapy might provide additional therapeutic benefits by improving symptoms and promoting reverse remodeling. Furthermore, cardiac regenerative therapies such as stem cell transplantation could become a new therapeutic resource in the management of HF. By analyzing the existing data from the literature, this review aims to evaluate the impact of new HF therapies in patients with IHD in order to gain further insight into the best form of therapeutic management for this large proportion of HF patients.

Activation of Mas and pGCA receptor pathways protects renal epithelial cell damage against oxidative-stress-induced injury

Over-activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) is a leading cause of cardio-renal complications. Oxidative stress is one of the major contributing factors in the over-activation of RAAS. Angiotensin-converting enzyme2/Angiotensin1-7/MasR and natriuretic peptide/particulate guanylyl cyclase receptor-A pathways play a key role in cardiorenal disease protection. Even though individual activation of these pathways possesses cardiorenal protective effects. However, the dual activation of these pathways under stress conditions and the underlying mechanism has not been explored. The study aimed to investigate whether activation of these pathways by dual-acting peptide (DAP) shows a protective effect in-vitro in oxidative stress-induced renal epithelial cells. Oxidative stress was induced in renal epithelial NRK-52E cells with H₂O₂. Co-treatment with Ang 1-7, BNP, and DAP was given for 30 min. AT1, MasR, and pGCA expression were measured by RT-PCR. The markers of oxidative stress and apoptosis were measured by confocal microscopy and FACS analysis. A significant increase in AT1, renin, α-SMA, and NFk-β expression and a significant decrease in MasR and pGCA expression was observed in H₂O₂-induced cells. DAP improved H₂O₂-induced pathological changes in NRK-52E cells. The effect of DAP was superior to that of Ang1-7 and BNP alone. Interestingly, MasR and pGCA inhibitors could block the effect of DAP in H₂O₂-induced cells. DAP shows superior anti-RAAS activity, and it is effective against H₂O₂-induced oxidative stress, apoptosis, fibrosis, and inflammation compared to Ang1-7 and BNP alone. The protective effect is mediated by the dual activation of MasR and pGCA.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor delays progression from paroxysmal to persistent atrial fibrillation

Progression from paroxysmal to persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is linked to adverse clinical outcomes. The present study sought to clarify whether angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) can delay AF progression. A retrospective cohort study was conducted on consecutive patients with paroxysmal AF admitted at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between January 2017 and January 2022. The risk of AF progression from paroxysmal to persistent was compared between paroxysmal patients treated with ARNI and those who received an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). Seven-day Holter monitoring was performed to identify persistent AF. Propensity-score matched analysis was performed to compare the two groups. Cox-regression was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for AF progression events. A total of 1083 patients were screened, and 113 patients in the ARB group and 57 patients in the ARNI group were eligible for analysis. Before propensity-score matching, the ARNI therapy was associated with a lower risk of AF progression than the ARB therapy (HR 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.81; P = 0.015) after a median follow-up of 705 (interquartile range [IQR] 512 to 895) days. Among 170 patients, 47 ARNI-treated patients were successfully matched to 47 ARB-treated patients. After a median follow-up of 724 (541-929) days, compared to ARB, ARNI significantly reduced the risk of AF progression (HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.12-0.88; P = 0.016). ARNI may be superior to ARB in reducing the risk of progression from paroxysmal to persistent AF.

Clinical efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan combined with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction after reperfusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Several studies have investigated the combined use of sacubitril- valsartan after reperfusion in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the sample sizes of these studies were small and their results were somewhat heterogeneous. To determine the effect of sacubitril-valsartan on myocardial ischemia-reperfusion.

Methods

Search PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, CNKI database, VIP database and Wanfang digital journal full-text database for eligible articles from their date of inception up to April, 2022. All data were meta-analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 16.0 software.

Results

A total of 23 studies including 2,326 patients with acute STEMI were included. These results of this meta-analysis indicated that left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF) value within 6 months after surgery (OR, 4.29; 95% confidence interval, 3.78-4.80; P < 0.00001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) value within 6 months after surgery (OR, -3.11; 95% CI, -3.87 to -2.35; P < 0.00001) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) value 6 months after operation (OR, -6.22; 95% CI, -7.10 to -5.35; P < 0.00001) are better than without sacubitril and valsartan.

Conclusion

To sum up the above, the results of this study suggest that sacubitril- valsartan can reduce the reperfusion injury of ischemic myocardium by improving cardiac function within a follow-up period of 6 months.

Renal events in patients receiving neprilysin inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While it is well known that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure, the role of neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) is unclear and some physicians are reluctant to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan because of safety concerns. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the risk for renal events, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or progression to dialysis on combined NEPi and ACEi/ARBs compared with ACEi or ARBs.

METHODS

We performed a systematic meta-analysis including 17 randomized controlled trials (study drug sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat), involving a total of 23 569 patients, after searching PubMed, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.org and Embase for eligible studies. From the included trials, all renal endpoints, including long- and short-term outcomes and hyperkalemia, were extracted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird method. The study was registered at PROSPERO.

RESULTS

Overall, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat showed a slightly lower risk of any renal event [OR 0.82 (0.7-0.97)] compared with treatment with an ACEi or ARB alone. Also, there was a decreased risk of severe acute renal events [OR 0.8 (0.69-0.93)] and a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline [mean difference -0.58 mL/min (-0.83 to -0.33 mL/min)]. There was no difference in chronic renal events [OR 0.92 (0.8-1.05)] or hyperkalemia [OR 1.02 (0.84-1.23)].

CONCLUSION

NEPi + ACEi/ARBs are safe in terms of renal adverse events. Longer trials focusing on CKD are needed to evaluate the effect of NEPi on decreasing progression of CKD.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of sacubitril-valsartan in the treatment of ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction

Objective

To systematically review the efficacy and safety of sacubitril and valsartan in treating acute myocardial infarction complicated with heart failure and to observe whether it can further improve patients' cardiac function, delay left ventricular remodeling, and reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs).

Methods

Electronic databases including Pubmed, Embase, the Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP were searched. The search period was from the establishment of the database to March 2022 to search for relevant controlled trials. Two investigators independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Revman5.3 and Stata14 software were used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 13 studies, with 6,968 patients were included. Meta-analysis results showed that sacubitril-valsartan increased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and decreased NT-proBNP level was better at 6 months and within 3 months of follow-up compared with the control group (P < 0.00001), but there was no significant difference at the 12-month follow-up (P > 0.05). Sacubitril-valsartan reducing LVEDD [MD = -2.55, 95%CI(-3.21, -1.88), P < 0.00001], LVEDVI [MD = -3.61, 95%CI(-6.82, -0.39), P = 0.03], LVESVI [MD = -3.77, 95%CI(-6.05, -1.49), P = 0.001], and increasing the distance of the 6-min walk test [MD = 48.20, 95%CI(40.31, 56.09), P < 0.00001] were more effective. Compared with ACEI/ARB, the use of ARNI can further reduce the total incidence of adverse cardiovascular events [RR = 0.72, 95%CI(0.62, 0.84), P<0.0001] and the rate of HF rehospitalization [RR = 0.73, 95%CI(0.61, 0.86), P = 0.0002] in patients with acute myocardial infarction and heart failure; there was no significant difference in the incidence of cardiac death, recurrence of myocardial infarction, and malignant arrhythmia between the experimental group and the control group (P > 0.05). In terms of the incidence of adverse reactions, the incidence of cough in ARNI was lower than that in ACEI/ARB group [RR = 0.69, 95%CI(0.60, 0.80), P < 0.00001], but the incidence of hypotension was higher [RR = 1.29, 95%CI(1.18, 1.41), P < 0.00001], and the adverse reactions of hyperkalemia, angioedema and renal insufficiency were not increased (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The use of sacubitril-valsartan sodium in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with heart failure can significantly improve cardiac function and reverse ventricular remodeling, reducing the risk of re-hospitalization for heart failure. There is no apparent adverse reaction except easy cause hypotension.

Systematic trial registration

[www.ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [CRD42022322901].

Impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared With Ramipril on Cardiac Structure and Function After Acute Myocardial Infarction: The PARADISE-MI Echocardiographic Substudy

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors attenuate left ventricular (LV) enlargement after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Preclinical data suggest similar benefits with combined angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition, but human data are conflicting. The PARADISE-MI Echo Study (Prospective ARNI Versus ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After Myocardial Infarction) tested the effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril on LV function and adverse remodeling after high risk-AMI.

METHODS

In a prespecified substudy, 544 PARADISE-MI participants were enrolled in the Echo Study to undergo protocol echocardiography at randomization and after 8 months. Patients were randomized within 0.5 to 7 days of presentation with their index AMI to receive a target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg or ramipril 5 mg twice daily. Echocardiographic measures were performed at a core laboratory by investigators blinded to treatment assignment. The effect of treatment on change in echo measures was assessed with ANCOVA with adjustment for baseline value and enrollment region. The primary end points were change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and left atrial volume (LAV), and prespecified secondary end points included changes in LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes.

RESULTS

Mean age was 64±12 years; 26% were women; mean LVEF was 42±12%; and LAV was 49±17 mL. Of 544 enrolled patients, 457 (84%) had a follow-up echo at 8 months (228 taking sacubitril/valsartan, 229 taking ramipril). There was no significant difference in change in LVEF (P=0.79) or LAV (P =0.62) by treatment group. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan demonstrated less increase in LV end-diastolic volume (P=0.025) and greater decline in LV mass index (P=0.037), increase in tissue Doppler e'lat (P=0.005), decrease in E/e'lat (P=0.045), and decrease in tricuspid regurgitation peak velocity (P=0.024) than patients randomized to ramipril. These differences remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics. Baseline LVEF, LV end-diastolic volume, LV end-systolic volume, LV mass index, LAV, and Doppler-based diastolic indices were associated with risk of cardiovascular death or incident heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan compared with ramipril after AMI did not result in changes in LVEF or LAV at 8 months. Patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan had less LV enlargement and greater improvement in filling pressure. Measures of LV size, systolic function, and diastolic properties were predictive of cardiovascular death and incident heart failure after AMI in this contemporary, well-treated cohort.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02924727.

The impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan on cardiac fibrosis early after myocardial infarction in hypertensive rats

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/Valsartan, a dual inhibitor of the neprilysin and angiotensin receptor, exerts cardioprotective effects in heart failure. Little is known on the impact of Sacubitril/Valsartan in hypertensive patients early post myocardial infarction.

METHODS

Spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHR) were pretreated by daily angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB; 30 mg/kg intraperitoneally), Sacubitril/Valsartan (ARNI; 60 mg/kg intraperitoneally) or the same dosage of physiological saline for 1 week. Then each group underwent myocardial infarction induction and received the same treatment for another week. The blood pressure and cardiac function were evaluated prior to sacrifice. We performed histological and molecular evaluation of fibrosis in vivo and in vitro.

RESULTS

The blood pressure was comparable between three groups both 1 week prior to and post myocardial infarction. ARNI and ARB restore the decreased ejection fraction (57.3 ± 7.6 vs. 42.9 ± 5.2%, P < 0.05; 54.3 ± 6.9 vs. 42.9 ± 5.2%, P < 0.01, respectively) and fractional shortening (31.6 ± 5.4 vs. 22.1 ± 3.1%, P < 0.05; 29.4 ± 4.5 vs. 22.1 ± 3.1%, P < 0.05, respectively) post myocardial infarction. The infarct size and collagen deposition were also significantly mitigated in ARNI and ARB groups. In addition, ARNI and ARB treatment reduced the expression of cardiac remodeling-related factors, such as Bnp, α-SMA, Vimentin, and Col1a1 (all P < 0.05 vs. MI group). Finally, ARNI and ARB decreased the expression of α-SMA in cardiac fibroblasts treated with Ang II.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, pretreatment with ARNI maintained cardiac function and reduced myocardial fibrosis in myocardial infarction, probably prior to any anti-hypertensive effect.

Molecular mechanisms of sacubitril/valsartan in cardiac remodeling

Cardiovascular diseases have become a major clinical burden globally. Heart failure is one of the diseases that commonly emanates from progressive uncontrolled hypertension. This gives rise to the need for a new treatment for the disease. Sacubitril/valsartan is a new drug combination that has been approved for patients with heart failure. This review aims to detail the mechanism of action for sacubitril/valsartan in cardiac remodeling, a cellular and molecular process that occurs during the development of heart failure. Accumulating evidence has unveiled the cardioprotective effects of sacubitril/valsartan on cellular and molecular modulation in cardiac remodeling, with recent large-scale randomized clinical trials confirming its supremacy over other traditional heart failure treatments. However, its molecular mechanism of action in cardiac remodeling remains obscure. Therefore, comprehending the molecular mechanism of action of sacubitril/valsartan could help future research to study the drug's potential therapy to reduce the severity of heart failure.

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor therapy and recurrence of atrial fibrillation after radiofrequency catheter ablation: A propensity-matched cohort study

Background

Compared with conventional medicines, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) could further improve the prognosis for multiple cardiovascular diseases, such as heart failure, hypertension, and myocardial infarction. However, the relationship between ARNI therapy and the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after radiofrequency catheter ablation is currently unknown.

Methods

This study is a retrospective cohort study. Patients with consecutive persistent or paroxysmal AF undergoing first-time radiofrequency ablation were enrolled from February 2018 to October 2021. We compared the risk of AF recurrence in patients with catheter ablation who received ARNI with the risk of AF recurrence in those who received the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI). The propensity-score matched analysis was conducted to examine the effectiveness of ARNI. We used a Cox regression model to evaluate AF recurrence events.

Results

Among 679 eligible patients, 155 patients with ARNI treatment and 155 patients with ACEI treatment were included in the analyses. At a median follow-up of 228 (196–322) days, ARNI as compared with ACEI was associated with a lower risk of AF recurrence [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.24–0.63; p &lt; 0.001]. In addition, no interaction was found in the subgroup analysis.

Conclusion

Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor treatment was associated with a decreased risk of AF recurrence after first-time radiofrequency catheter ablation.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition in patients affected by heart failure: efficacy, mechanistic effects and practical use of sacubitril/valsartan. Position Paper of the Italian Society of Cardiology

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition is a mainstay of the pharmacological treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In the last years RAAS blockade has been improved by the introduction of the Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan, that combines RAAS inhibition with the block of neprilysin, boosting the positive effects of natriuretic peptides. The PARADIGM-HF trial demonstrated a significant advantage of sacubitril/valsartan over enalapril on the reduction of cardiovascular (CV) mortality and heart failure hospitalizations rates. Then, several randomized clinical trials and observational studies investigated its role in different clinical settings and its efficacy has been fully recognized in the most recent HFrEF European and USA guidelines. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on major CV outcomes are associated with reduction of NT-proBNP levels and reverse cardiac remodeling and mitral regurgitation, recognized as one of the mechanistic effects of the drug explaining the favorable prognostic effects. A careful evaluation of patients' clinical profile is relevant to implement the use of ARNI in the clinical practice and to obtain the maximal treatment efficacy. The present Position Paper reports the opinion of the Italian Society of Cardiology on the optimal blockade of the RAAS system in HF patients with the aim of fostering widespread implementation of scientific evidence and practice guidelines in the medical community.

Protective effect of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction: A meta‑analysis

To evaluate the effects and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), a total of four databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website were searched. Using a combination of medical subject headings and entry terms, the final search was performed in July 2021. A manual search of cross-references from the original articles was also conducted. The meta-analysis was subsequently performed with Revman 5.3 software and a total of four studies comprising 586 patients were included. The results disclosed a significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) [odds ratio (OR), 0.47; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.30-0.73; P=0.0007], readmission (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.71; P=0.0006), incidence of acute heart failure (AHF) (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.71; P=0.0007) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide [standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.88; 95% CI, -1.55-(-0.21); P=0.01] in the sacubitril/valsartan group compared with that in the control group, and a random effects model was used to pool these data. No significant differences were identified in the incidence of hypotension (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 0.55-15.51; P=0.21), adverse events (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 0.42-11.37; P=0.35), left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference, 1.96; 95% CI, -0.84-4.76; P=0.17) or soluble suppression of tumorigenesis-2 (SMD, -0.45; 95% CI, -1.62-0.71; P=0.45) according to the random effects model. In conclusion, the present meta-analysis revealed that sacubitril/valsartan was able to effectively reduce the incidence of MACCEs, readmission and AHF in patients with AMI after revascularization without any obvious adverse events.

Cardiopulmonary exercise test-based assessment of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the blood pressure response to exercise in patients with acute myocardial infarction during hospitalization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) on cardiopulmonary function and blood pressure response to exercise during hospitalization in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) based on the cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET).

METHODS

A total of 265 AMI patients were treated with either perindopril or S/V within 24 hours of admission. CPET was completed for all patients before discharge. There were 182 cases in the perindopril group and 83 cases in the S/V group.

RESULTS

The proportion of exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) was higher in the S/V group than in the perindopril group (10.8% vs 1.6%, X² = 11.148, P = .001). The resting heart rate (HR), resting diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and warm-up DBP were lower in the S/V group than in the perindopril group (P < .05). The resting systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 9.0 mmHg lower (115.7 ± 17.5 vs 106.7 ± 15.0, P < .001), the SBP during warm-up was 9.5 mmHg lower (124.8 ± 23.7 vs 115.3 ± 22.5,P = .002), the SBP at the anaerobic threshold (AT) was 10.5 mmHg lower (135.3 ± 24.8 vs 127.1 ± 25.1,P = .021),the SBP at max watts was 11.5 mmHg lower (148.9 ± 26.4 vs 137.4 ± 26.4,P = .001), and the SBP during one-minute recovery was 12.3 mmHg lower (146.5 ± 27.1 vs 134.2 ± 24.4, P = .001)in the S/V group than in the perindopril group. The S/V group had a higher oxygen ventilation equivalent and carbon dioxide ventilation equivalent (VE/VCO₂) at AT and a lower oxygen uptake-work rate relationship during max watts (P < .05). The differences in the oxygen pulse, stroke volume, peak oxygen uptake (VO_{2 peak}), and VE/VCO₂ slope were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with S/V was able to reduce the exercise blood pressure in patients with AMI during hospitalization, but did not significantly improve the VO_{2 peak}, VE/VCO₂ slope, or exercise tolerance.

Assessment of Ultra-Early Administration of Sacubitril Valsartan to Improve Cardiac Remodeling in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Following Primary PCI: Rational and Design of a Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Despite coronary re-vascularization, the common complications of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), cardiac remodeling, and heart failure (HF), is increasing globally. Sacubitril valsartan (SV), an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), has been previously demonstrated to improve HF. We further hypothesize that ultra-early SV treatment is also effective in preventing cardiac remodeling for patients with AMI following primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

The Assessment of ultra-early administration of Sacubitril Valsartan to improve cardiac remodeling in patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction following primary PCI (ASV-AMI) trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in China planning to enroll at least 1,942 eligible patients from 10 centers. After successful primary PCI of culprit artery within 24 h, AMI patients are randomized to 2 h group or 3–7 days group with SV treatment. The major endpoints are echocardiographic measurement, cardiothoracic ratio, and N-Terminal pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (NT pro-BNP) at baseline, 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. The secondary endpoints included MACE (cardiac arrest, cardiogenic death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel re-vascularization), in-/out-patient HF, EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D), and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ).

Discussion

The ASV-AMI trial is the first clinical trial of ultra-early administration of SV in the treatment of post-PCI AMI, adding more clinical evidence. Early application of SV to prevent cardiac remodeling in AMI patient is a major focus of this trial.

Clinical Trial Registration

Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn; ChiCTR2100051979). Registered on 11 October 2021.

Effect of Angiotensin-Neprilysin Versus Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibition on Renal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aims: We aim to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis examining randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in patients on renal outcomes, in comparison with the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi).

Methods: Eligible studies were retrieved on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane until September 2021. The primary outcome was the incidence of renal impairment, which was defined as the composite of increases in serum creatinine by >0.3 mg/dl and/or a reduction in eGFR ≥25%, development of ESRD, or renal death. We pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or the mean difference with 95% CIs for the variables.

Results: Our search yielded 10 randomized controlled trials with a total of 18,362 patients. Compared with RAASi treatment, patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan had lower incidence of composite renal impairment (10 studies, 18,362 patients, RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72–0.96, p = 0.01; I² = 22%), ESRD development (3 studies, 13,609 patients, RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.30–0.96, p = 0.03; I² = 0%), drug discontinuation due to renal events (4 studies, 9,995 patients, RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.40–0.83, p = 0.003; I² = 47%), severe hyperkalemia (6 studies, 16,653 patients, RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.68–0.93, p = 0.01; I² = 25%) and a slower eGFR decline (4 studies, 13,608 patients, WMD 0.56; 95% CI 0.36–0.76, p < 0.00001; I² = 65%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a lower incidence of renal impairment in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but not in those with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The superior renal function preservation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment was not associated with different baseline eGFR levels and follow-up duration. There was a smaller increase in the change in the urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) (3 studies, 9,114 patients, SMD 0.06; 95% CI 0.02–0.10, p = 0.003; I² = 14%) with sacubitril/valsartan treatment. However, patients with heart failure appeared to have increased microalbuminuria, not patients without HF (p = 0.80 for interaction).

Conclusion: Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a lower incidence of composite renal impairment especially in patients with HFpEF, but higher microalbuminuria in patients with heart failure (both HFrEF and HFpEF) compared with RAASi. The lower incidence of severe hyperkalemia and drug discontinuation due to renal events in patients with sacubitril/valsartan treatment demonstrated its superior safety compared with RAASi.

Rationale and design of a multi-center, prospective randomized controlled trial on the effects of sacubitril-valsartan versus enalapril on left ventricular remodeling in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: The PERI-STEMI study

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril-valsartan has been recommended as one of the first-line therapies in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, whether ARNI could benefit patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) by improving left ventricular (LV) remodeling remains unknown. The primary objective of the PERI-STEMI trial is to assess whether sacubitril-valsartan is more effective in preventing adverse LV remodeling for patients with STEMI than enalapril.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesize that sacubitril/valsartan is superior to enalapril in preventing adverse LV remodeling evaluated by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at the 6-month follow-up.

METHODS

PERI-STEMI is an investigator-initiated, prospective, multi-center, randomized, open-label, superiority trial with blinded evaluation of outcomes. A total of 376 first-time STEMI patients with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) within 12 h after symptom onset will be randomized to sacubitril-valsartan or enalapril treatment. All the patients will receive a baseline cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) examination at 4-7 days post-PPCI. The primary endpoint is the change of indexed LV mass at the 6-month follow-up CMR.

RESULTS

Enrollment of the first patient is planned in November 2021. Recruitment is anticipated to last for 12-18 months and patients will be followed for 5 years after randomization. The study is expected to complete in June 2027.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the PERI-STEMI trial are expected to provide CMR evidence on whether ARNI could benefit patients with STEMI, so as to facilitate the strategy of CMR-based risk stratification and therapy selection for these patients. PERI-STEMI is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04912167).

The benefits of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

We aimed to investigate whether sacubitril-valsartan could further improve the prognosis, cardiac function, and left ventricular (LV) remodelling in patients following acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from inception to 10 May 2021 to identify potential articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analysed. Thirteen RCTs, covering 1358 patients, were analysed. Compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), sacubitril-valsartan did not significantly reduced the cardiovascular mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 1.93, P = 0.434] and the rate of myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.46, P = 0.295) of patients following AMI, but the rate of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.66, P < 0.001) and the change of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) [weighted mean difference (WMD) 5.49, 95% CI 3.62 to 7.36, P < 0.001] were obviously improved. The N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-ProBNP) level (WMD -310.23, 95% CI -385.89 to -234.57, P < 0.001) and the LV end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (WMD -3.16, 95% CI -4.59 to -1.73, P < 0.001) were also significantly lower in sacubitril-valsartan group than in ACEI/ARB group. Regarding safety, sacubitril-valsartan did not increase the risk of hypotension, hyperkalaemia, angioedema, and cough.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that early administration of sacubitril-valsartan may be superior to conventional ACEI/ARB to decrease the risk of hospitalization for HF, improve the cardiac function, and reverse the LV remodelling in patients following AMI.

Does sacubitril/valsartan work in acute myocardial infarction? The PARADISE-AMI study

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by left ventricular dysfunction have an increased risk of death and heart failure. Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated the ability of ACE inhibitors in optimizing the outcome in this particular clinical setting. In recent years, the sacubitril/valsartan association has drastically improved the prognosis of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with a significant decrease in mortality from cardiovascular causes and hospitalizations due to acute heart failure. However, it has not yet been fully clarified whether this pharmacological association may play a role in patients with AMI. Pre-clinical studies have suggested the possibility that sacubitril/valsartan can reduce the size of the infarct scar and prevent the onset of ventricular arrhythmias in laboratory animals in which myocardial infarction was induced. On the other hand, small clinical experiences with patients after myocardial infarction have provided conflicting data. The results of the PARADISE-MI study were recently presented, which enrolled 5661 patients with AMI complicated by pulmonary congestion and left ventricular dysfunction randomized to therapy with ramipril or sacubitril/valsartan and followed up for ∼2 years. Although combination therapy was associated with an ∼10% reduction in the risk of death from cardiovascular causes or an episode of heart failure, this was not enough to achieve statistical significance. However, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was shown to be more effective than ramipril in preventing recurrence of heart failure after the first one.

Efficacy and safety of early initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patients after acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis

Some randomized controlled trials have compared the effectiveness and safety outcomes between early initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in patients after acute myocardial infarction. Therefore, our current meta-analysis aimed to clarify the confusion. Four Databases and relevant grey literature were searched for studies from inception to July 2, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Four studies involving 6154 patients were included to perform meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis showed that the left ventricular ejection fraction in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group was higher than the ACEI group (SMD: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.55, P = .000), the incidence of major adverse cardiac events in the Sacubitril/Valsartan group was lower than the ACEI group (RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.46-0.82, P = .001), while the incidences of cardiac death (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.81-1.24, P = 1.000) and the heart failure hospitalization (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.37-1.03, P = .065) showed no difference. For the incidences of myocardial infarction and the adverse side effects, there was no obvious advantage of the Sacubitril/Valsartan group over the ACEI group, because the meta-analysis was not performed due to the limited trials. This study indicated that early initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in patients after acute myocardial infarction was superior to ACEI in reducing the risks of major adverse cardiac events and left ventricular ejection fraction increasing. As for the other outcomes (the incidences of cardiac death, the heart failure hospitalization, the myocardial infarction and the adverse side effects), Sacubitril/Valsartan showed no obvious advantage than ACEI.