Recovery of left ventricular dysfunction after sacubitril/valsartan: predictors and management

Recovery From Left Ventricular Dysfunction

The treatment of heart failure is an evolving field of cardiology, with increasingly available therapeutics and significant disease burden. With the effective treatments available, we see a substantial patient population whose once reduced ejection fraction (EF) has normalized. Studies have assessed the natural history of these patients with improved EF and found improved mortality as compared with those patients with persistently reduced EF, with some evidence stating that each 5% increase in left ventricular EF correlates with a 4.9-fold decrease in the odds of mortality. This prognostic divergence has led to the recognition of this subset of patients as having a unique heart failure diagnosis, distinct from heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF) or heart failure with preserved EF and to the adoption of the term heart failure with recovered EF. These patients, despite having improved mortality, do retain some of the molecular and histologic changes seen in HFrEF and are still at risk for decline in left ventricular function and adverse cardiac events, particularly when medical therapy is stopped. This distinction between recovery of EF and true myocardial recovery led to recent guidelines recommending continuation of guideline-directed medical therapy indefinitely, as well as surveillance echocardiography.

Add-on Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy Induces Left Ventricular Remodeling in Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy to a Similar Extent as in Heart Failure Patients Without Resynchronization

INTRODUCTION

Non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-NR) have poor prognosis. Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) treatment improved the outcome of patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized trials with no data on the specific cohort of CRT-NRs. The aim of this study was to compare the echocardiographic and biomarker changes in CRT-NR patients treated with versus without SV, and in patients with HFrEF on SV therapy.

METHODS

CRT-NR patients initiated on SV (group I), CRT-NR patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) (group II), and patients with HFrEF (without CRT) initiated on SV (group III) were identified in our heart failure (HF) registry. CRT-NR was defined as < 10% improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF) 6 months after the implantation. Echocardiographic parameters and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at baseline and at the end of follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 275 patients (group I, 70; group II, 70; and group III, 135) were included. After a follow-up of 7.54 ± 1.8 months (mean ± standard deviation [SD]), LV EF (%) increased in group I (25.2 ± 5.7 versus 29.4% ± 6.7; p < 0.001) and in group III (26.6 ± 6.4 versus 29.9 ± 6.7; p < 0.001). LV end-systolic diameters (mm) decreased in group I (56.6 ± 9.0 versus 54.3 ± 8.7; p = 0.004) and in group III (55.9 ± 9.9 versus 54.3 ± 11.2; p = 0.021). The levels of NT-proBNP (pg/mL) decreased in group I (2058.86 [1041.07-4502.51] versus 1121.55 [545-2541]; p < 0.001) and in group III (2223.35 [1233.03-4795.96] versus 1123.09 [500.38-2651.27]; p < 0.001). The extent of improvement was similar in groups I and III (p > 0.05). No significant changes were detected in group II.

CONCLUSION

SV therapy induced similar improvements in echocardiographic parameters and in NT-proBNP levels in CRT-NR patients and in patients with HFrEF without resynchronization.

Heart failure with improved ejection fraction: Beyond diagnosis to trajectory analysis

Left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction represents a highly treatable cause of heart failure (HF). A substantial proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF;HFrEF) demonstrate improvement in LV systolic function (termed HF with improved EF [HFimpEF]), either spontaneously or when treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT). Although it is a relatively new HF classification, HFimpEF has emerged in recent years as an important and distinct clinical entity. Improvement in LVEF leads to decreased rates of mortality and adverse HF-related outcomes compared to patients with sustained LV systolic dysfunction (HFrEF). While numerous clinical and imaging factors have been associated with HFimpEF, identification of which patients do and do not improve requires further investigation. In addition, patients improve at different rates, and what determines the trajectory of HFimpEF patients after improvement is incompletely characterized. A proportion of patients maintain improvement in LV systolic function, while others experience a recrudescence of systolic dysfunction, especially with GDMT discontinuation. In this review we discuss the contemporary guideline-recommended classification definition of HFimpEF, the epidemiology of improvement in LV systolic function, and the clinical course of this unique patient population. We also offer evidence-based recommendations for the clinical management of HFimpEF and provide a roadmap for future directions in understanding and improving outcomes in the care of patients with HFimpEF.

Penalized Model-Based Unsupervised Phenomapping Unravels Distinctive HFrEF Phenotypes With Improved Outcomes Discrimination From Sacubitril/Valsartan Treatment Independent of MAGGIC Score

Background The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (LCZ696) has emerged as a promising pharmacological intervention against renin-angiotensin system inhibitor in reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Whether the therapeutic benefits may vary among heterogeneous HFrEF subgroups remains unknown. Methods and Results This study comprised a pooled 2-center analysis including 1103 patients with symptomatic HFrEF with LCZ696 use and another 1103 independent HFrEF control cohort (with renin-angiotensin system inhibitor use) matched for age, sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, and comorbidity conditions. Three main distinct phenogroup clusterings were identified from unsupervised machine learning using 29 clinical variables: phenogroup 1 (youngest, relatively lower diabetes prevalence, highest glomerular filtration rate with largest left ventricular size and left ventricular wall stress); phenogroup 2 (oldest, lean, highest diabetes and vascular diseases prevalence, lowest highest glomerular filtration rate with smallest left ventricular size and mass), and phenogroup 3 (lowest clinical comorbidity with largest left ventricular mass and highest hypertrophy prevalence). During the median 1.74-year follow-up, phenogroup assignment provided improved prognostic discrimination beyond Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure risk score risk score (all net reclassification index P<0.05) with overall good calibrations. While phenogroup 1 showed overall best clinical outcomes, phenogroup 2 demonstrated highest cardiovascular death and worst renal end point, with phenogroup 3 having the highest all-cause death rate and HF hospitalization among groups, respectively. These findings were broadly consistent when compared with the renin-angiotensin system inhibitor control as reference group. Conclusions Phenomapping provided novel insights on unique characteristics and cardiac features among patients with HFrEF with sacubitril/valsartan treatment. These findings further showed potentiality in identifying potential sacubitril/valsartan responders and nonresponders with improved outcome discrimination among patients with HFrEF beyond clinical scoring.

The Rare Condition of Left Ventricular Non-Compaction and Reverse Remodeling

Left ventricular non-compaction (LVNC) is a rare disease defined by morphological criteria, consisting of a two-layered ventricular wall, a thin compacted epicardial layer, and a thick hyper-trabeculated myocardium layer with deep recesses. Controversies still exist regarding whether it is a distinct cardiomyopathy (CM) or a morphological trait of different conditions. This review analyzes data from the literature regarding diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in LVNC and the current knowledge regarding reverse remodeling in this form of CM. Furthermore, for clear exemplification, we report a case of a 41-year-old male who presented symptoms of heart failure (HF). LVNC CM was suspected at the time of transthoracic echocardiography and was subsequently confirmed upon cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. A favorable remodeling and clinical outcome were registered after including an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in the HF treatment. LVNC remains a heterogenous CM, and although a favorable outcome is not commonly encountered, some patients respond well to therapy.

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.

Improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Predictors and clinical impact

BACKGROUND

A percentage of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the evolution. This entity, defined for the first time in an international consensus as heart failure with improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF), could have a different clinical profile and prognosis than HFrEF. Our main aim was to analyze the differential clinical profile between the two entities, as well as the mid-term prognosis.

MATERIAL-METHODS

Prospective study of a cohort of patients with HFrEF who had echocardiographic data at baseline and follow-up. A comparative analysis of patients who improved LVEF with those who did not was made. Clinical, echocardiographic and therapeutic variables were analyzed, and the mid-term impact in terms of mortality and hospital readmissions for HF was assessed.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were analyzed. Mean age was 66.5(10.4) years, with a male predominance (72.2%). Forty five patients (50%) improved LVEF (Group-1,HFimpEF) and forty five patients (50%) sustained reduced LVEF (Group-2,HFsrEF). The mean time to LVEF improvement in Group-1 was 12.6(5.7) months. Group-1 had a more favorable clinical profile: lower prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors, higher prevalence of de novo HF (75.6% vs. 42.2%; p<0.05), lower prevalence of ischemic etiology (22.2% vs. 42.2%; p<0.05), with less basal dilatation of the left ventricle. At the end of follow-up (mean 19(1) months) Group-1 had a lower hospital readmission rate (3.1% vs. 26.7%; p<0.01), as well as lower mortality (0% vs. 24.4%; p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Patients with HFimpEF seem to have a better mid-term prognosis in terms of reduced mortality and hospital admissions. This improvement could be conditioned by the clinical profile of patients HFimpEF.

Transfer RNA-derived small RNAs and their potential roles in the therapeutic heterogeneity of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients after acute myocardial infarction

Background

It has been reported that sacubitril/valsartan can improve cardiac function in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients complicated by heart failure (HF). However, a number of patients cannot be treated successfully; this phenomenon is called sacubitril/valsartan resistance (SVR), and the mechanisms remain unclear.

Methods

In our present research, the expression profiles of transfer RNA (tRNA)-derived small RNAs (tsRNAs) in SVR along with no sacubitril/valsartan resistance (NSVR) patients were determined by RNA sequencing. Through bioinformatics, quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR), and cell-based experiments, we identified SVR-related tsRNAs and confirmed their diagnostic value, predicted their targeted genes, and explored the enriched signal pathways as well as regulatory roles of tsRNAs in SVR.

Results

Our research indicated that 36 tsRNAs were upregulated and that 21 tsRNAs were downregulated in SVR. Among these tsRNAs, the expression of tRF-59:76-Tyr-GTA-2-M3 and tRF-60:76-Val-AAC-1-M5 was upregulated, while the expression of tRF-1:29-Gly-GCC-1 was downregulated in the group of SVR. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated that these three tsRNAs were potential biomarkers of the therapeutic heterogeneity of sacubitril/valsartan. Moreover, tRF-60:76-Val-AAC-1-M5 might target Tnfrsf10b and Bcl2l1 to influence the observed therapeutic heterogeneity through the lipid and atherosclerosis signaling pathways.

Conclusion

Hence, tsRNA might play a vital role in SVR. These discoveries provide new insights for the mechanistic investigation of responsiveness to sacubitril/valsartan.

A narrative review on sacubitril/valsartan and ventricular arrhythmias

Sacubitril/valsartan, the first angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor approved by the Food and Drug Administration for marketing, has been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization and improve symptoms in patients with chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. However, some researchers have also found that sacubitril/valsartan has an antiarrhythmic effect. The mechanism by which sacubitril/valsartan reduces the mortality associated with malignant ventricular arrhythmias is not precise. Many studies have concluded that ventricular arrhythmia is associated with a reduction in myocardial fibrosis. This article reviews the current understanding of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the reduction of ventricular arrhythmia and explains its possible mechanisms. The results of this study suggest that sacubitril/valsartan reduces the occurrence of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks. Meanwhile, sacubitril/valsartan may reduce the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias by affecting 3 pathways of B-type natriuretic peptide, Angiotensin II, and Bradykinin. The conclusion of this study is that sacubitril/valsartan reduces the number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks and ventricular arrhythmias in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients.

Female Gender Is Associated with an Increased Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Recovery in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association whether the female gender was associated with an increased chance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We searched the databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to 18 January 2022. Included studies were published studies evaluating or reporting characteristics of patients with HF with recovered LVEF. Data from each study were combined using a random-effects model, the generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird, to calculate odd ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Eighteen studies were included in the analysis with a total of 12,270 patients (28.2% female). Female gender was associated with an increased chance of LVEF recovery (pooled OR = 1.50, 95% CI = 1.21−1.86, p-value < 0.001, I2 = 74.5%). In our subgroup analysis, female gender was associated with an increased chance of LVEF recovery when defined as LVEF > 50% (pooled OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 1.45−2.18, p-value < 0.001, I2 = 0.0%), and LVEF > 40−45% (pooled OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.09−1.91, p-value = 0.009, I2 = 79.2%), but not in LVEF > 35 (OR = 2.18, 95% CI = 0.94−5.05, p-value = 0.06). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the female gender is associated with an increased chance of LVEF recovery. This association was not statistically significant in the subgroup that defined LVEF recovery as LVEF > 35%.

Duration of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Associated With Electrocardiographic Outcomes Before and After Sacubitril/Valsartan

AIM

Changes in QRS duration in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after sacubitril/valsartan therapy is not fully understood. This study aimed to assess the association of duration of HFrEF diagnosis with electrocardiographic and echocardiographic outcomes between before and after sacubitril/valsartan.

METHODS

We included HFrEF patients who received naïve sacubitril/valsartan therapy for ≥3 months, between January 2016 and March 2018. All patients were divided into 2 groups based on their duration of HFrEF. Generalized linear models were analyzed the cardiac outcomes after sacubitril/valsartan therapy by HFrEF duration.

RESULTS

Among these, 42 patients were HFrEF duration of <1 year and 47 patients were ≥1 year. The mean difference of QRS duration was lesser in the <1-year group than in the ≥1-year group (-2.3 msec vs 6.3 msec; P = .029). However, the mean difference of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was higher in the ≥1-year group (13.8% vs 5.8%; P = .008). After adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics, the ≥1-year group had a significantly prolonged QRS duration (coefficient = 11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-21.7) and an unfavorable LVEF recovery (coefficient = -10.3; 95% CI -14.5 to -6.1) compared with the <1-year group.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged QRS durations and unfavorable LVEF recoveries after sacubitril/valsartan therapy were observed in patients with HFrEF duration of ≥1 year. Earlier diagnosis of HFrEF and appropriate medication treatment may be beneficial in the improvement of QRS duration and LVEF recovery.

Low- vs high-dose ARNI effects on clinical status, exercise performance and cardiac function in real-life HFrEF patients

Purpose

Only a few studies are available on dose-related effects of sacubitril/valsartan (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition (ARNI)) in real-life patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We sought to investigate clinical and functional effects in real-life HFrEF patients receiving ARNI at a different cumulative dose.

Methods

This was an observational study in consecutive outpatients admitted for HFrEF from October 2017 to June 2019. The PARADIGM criteria were needed for enrolment. ARNI was uptitrated according to blood pressure, drug tolerability, renal function and kaliemia. At least 10-month follow-up was required in each patient. Clinical assessment, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) score, 6-min walk test and strain echocardiography were performed in each patient on a regular basis during the observational period. At the end of the study, patients were divided into two groups based on the median yearly dose of the ARNI medication.

Results

A total of 90 patients, 64 ± 11 years, 82% males, were enrolled. The cut-off dose was established in 75 mg BID, and the study population was divided into group A (≤ 75 mg), 52 patients (58%), and group B (> 75 mg), 38 patients (42%). The follow-up duration was 12 months (range 11–13). NYHA class, KCCQ score and 6MWT performance ameliorated in both groups, with a quicker time to benefit in group B. The proportion of patients walking > 350 m increased from 21 to 58% in group A (p < 0.001), and from 29 to 82% in group B (p < 0.001). A positive effect was also disclosed in the left ventricular remodelling, strain deformation and diastolic function.

Conclusion

One-year ARNI treatment was effective in our real-life HFrEF patient population, leading to clinical and functional improvement in both study groups, slightly greater and with a shorter time to benefit in group B.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-021-03210-0.

Remodelling is inversely proportional to left ventricular dimensions in a real-life population of patients with chronic heart failure after therapy with sacubitril/valsartan

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) remodelling is a major mechanism underlying disease progression in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Previous studies that LVEF improvement and reverse remodelling can be achieved after therapy with Sacubitril/Valsartan in real-world settings. Therefore, we sought to investigate possible predictors of LV remodelling, in particular echocardiographic parameters derived by Tissue Doppler Imaging.

METHODS

Patients with chronic HF, LV dysfunction (EF < 35%), NYHA class II-III were followed up between September 2016 and January 2019. All patients underwent clinical and echocardiography follow up at baseline and after 12 months of therapy with sacubitril/valsartan.

RESULTS

Fifty-four consecutive outpatients were enrolled in the study. At follow-up visit LVEF (38 ± 9 vs. 30 ± 5%, p < 0.0001), LVEDD (61 ± 8 vs. 62 ± 8 mm, p = 0.0085), LVESV (114 ± 57 vs. 130 ± 56 mm³, p = 0.0001), mitral regurgitation severity (1 ± 1 vs. 2 ± 1, p < 0.0001), and left atrial area (23 ± 6 vs. 24 ± 6 mm², p = 0.0121) changed compared to the baseline value. Changes in LVEF (follow up vs baseline) correlated with baseline levels of heart rate (r = 0.24, p = 0.048), LVEDD (r= -0.33, p = 0.004), LVEDV (r= -0.39, p = 0.001), LVESV (r = 0.37, p = 0.002), and changes in LVESV (r=-0.34, p = 0.006). Correlations remained significant even after correction at multivariate analysis including age and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with systolic dysfunction is associated with an improvement in LVEF in a real world scenario. Smaller LV volumes are associated with better reverse LV remodelling.

Clinical characteristics, prescription patterns, and persistence associated with sacubitril/valsartan adoption: A STROBE-compliant study

Sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) was launched in China in 2018; however, the adoption of sac/val in real-world clinical practice has yet to be described.This study aimed to analyze real-world treatment patterns of sac/val using data from 3 tertiary hospitals in China.A non-interventional, retrospective cohort study of patients with Heart failure (HF) prescribed sac/val from 3 tertiary hospitals in China between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2020 was conducted. The analysis included sac/val dose titration patterns and persistence during 6 months post-index.A total of 267 patients were included, with a mean age of 63.9 ± 13.1 years. At index, 27% of patients were prescribed sac/val 12/13 mg b.i.d., 63.7% were prescribed 24/26 mg b.i.d., 4.5% were prescribed the target dose of 49/51 mg b.i.d., and 4.8% were not prescribed according to the recommended dose. During the 6 months post-index, 8.3% of patients had only 1 dose titration record. Good therapeutic persistence was observed across sac/val doses, and only 15.7% of patients discontinued sac/val during the 6 months post-index.In China, the majority of patients prescribed sac/val are not initiated on the recommended dose nor up-titrated according to drug instruction. Notably, good persistence with sac/val is observed in the real-world cohort study.

Real-world experience of angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) usage in Thailand: a single-center, retrospective analysis

Background

Treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been revolutionized by angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI). ARNI has been shown to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in a large, randomized controlled trial. However, real-world evaluation of ARNI with a diverse population is still limited.

Methods

HFrEF patients receiving angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) or standard HF treatment at a university hospital in Thailand were prospectively followed-up from January 2015 to December 2019. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Survival analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model were used to compare clinical outcomes between the two groups.

Results

During a follow-up period of 12 months, the primary outcome occurred in 10 patients in the ARNI group (11.5%) and 28 in the standard treatment group (28.0%) (hazard ratio 0.34; 95% CI: 0.15–0.80; p = 0.013). After adjustment for confounding factors, ARNI was significantly associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome (HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13–0.82, p = 0.017). In addition, ARNI was also significantly associated with a decrease in the clinical signs and symptoms of HF, including dyspnea, orthopnea, and fatigue. Orthostatic hypotension was more frequently reported among the ARNI group than among the standard treatment group. The rates of target dose achievement were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

In real-world practice, ARNI use was associated with a significant reduction in both clinical outcomes and symptom improvement, while orthostatic hypotension was more common in patients in the ARNI group than in patients in the standard treatment group.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02145-9.

Sacubitril/valsartan improves cardiac function in Chinese patients with heart failure: a real-world study

Aims

Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in a randomized controlled trial. However, little is known about real‐world efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in Chinese patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to evaluate whether sacubitril/valsartan could improve cardiac function in Chinese patients with HFrEF in a tertiary hospital in China.

Methods and results

Patients with HFrEF receiving sacubitril/valsartan in our hospital between January 2018 and January 2020 were recruited in the present study. We retrospectively collected and analysed all clinical parameters at baseline and during follow‐up. A total of 100 consecutive patients (73% male) with HFrEF were recruited in the present study. During a median follow‐up period of 365 days [interquartile range (IQR), 346–378], a pronounced improvement of cardiac function was achieved. New York Heart Association classification was significantly improved (P < 0.001), and median N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptides level significantly decreased from 3003 pg/mL (IQR, 1513–5404) to 2039 pg/mL (IQR, 921–3955) (P = 0.010). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction increased from 31 ± 6% to 38 ± 10% (P < 0.001) and median left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter reduced from 63 mm (IQR, 59–67) to 60 mm (IQR, 55–68) (P = 0.001). Mean pulmonary arterial systolic pressure decreased significantly from 49 ± 13 mmHg to 44 ± 12 mmHg (P < 0.001) and median right ventricular end‐diastolic diameter reduced from 23 mm (IQR, 21–26) to 22 mm (IQR, 20–25) (P = 0.030). After treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, mean estimated glomerular filtration rate significantly decreased (from 88.8 ± 22.4 mL/min to 71.8 ± 27.3 mL/min, P < 0.001). Median serum creatinine and median blood urea nitrogen levels significantly increased [from 0.9 mg/dL (IQR, 0.8–1.0) to 1.1 mg/dL (IQR, 0.9–1.3), P < 0.001, and from 6.8 mmol/L (IQR, 5.5–8.9) to 8.0 mmol/L (IQR, 6.6–10.3), P = 0.002, respectively]. The proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease Stage 3/4 increased significantly from 8% to 39% (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

In Chinese patients with HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with a pronounced improvement of cardiac function, but might be prone to a decrease in blood pressure and deterioration in renal function.

Beneficial Effect of Left Ventricular Remodeling after Early Change of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients with Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy

Background and Objectives: Evidence for effectiveness of early change from angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) to sacubitril/valsartan is lacking. We aimed to investigate whether early changes to sacubitril/valsartan could improve outcomes in patients with nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in real-world practice. Materials and Methods: A total of 296 patients with nonischemic DCM who were treated with ARB or ACEI continuously (group A, n = 150) or had their medication switched to sacubitril/valsartan (group S, n = 146) were included. The sacubitril/valsartan group was divided into early change (within 60 days, group S/E, n = 59) and late change (group S/L, n = 87) groups. Changes in echocardiographic parameters from the time of initial diagnosis to the last follow-up were analyzed. Results: Patients in group S showed greater left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic dimension (EDD) (group A vs. S, 61.7 ± 7.4 vs. 66.5 ± 8.0, p < 0.001) and lower LV ejection fraction (LVEF) (28.9 ± 8.2% vs. 23.9 ± 7.5%, p < 0.001) than those in group A at initial diagnosis. During a median follow-up of 76 months, patients in group S/E, ∆ LVEF (%) and ∆ LVESD (mm) were significantly improved compared with those in patients in group A (group A vs. S/E, ∆ LVEF, p = 0.036; ∆ LVESD, p = 0.023) or S/L (group S/E vs. S/L, ∆ LVEF, p = 0.05; ∆ LVESD, p = 0.005). Among patients whose medications were switched to sacubitril/valsartan, those with an earlier change showed a significant correlation with greater LVEF improvement (r = -0.367, p < 0.001) and LV reverse remodeling (r = 0.277, p < 0.001). Conclusions: in patients with nonischemic DCM, an early switch to sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater improvement in LV function. Patients might benefit in terms of LV function by early switching to sacubitril/valsartan.

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.

A Simple Score to Identify Super-Responders to Sacubitril/Valsartan in Ambulatory Patients With Heart Failure

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) promotes cardiac remodeling and improves prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the response to the drug may vary between patients and its implementation in daily clinical practice has been slower than expected. Our objective was to develop a score predicting the super-response to SV in HF outpatients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of 185 consecutive patients prescribed SV from two tertiary hospitals between September 2016 and February 2018. Super-responder was defined as a patient taking the drug and (i) without HF admissions, death, or heart transplant, and (ii) with a ≥50% reduction in NT-proBNP levels and/or an increase of ≥10 points in LVEF in a 12-month follow-up period after starting SV. Clinical, echocardiographic, ECG, and biochemical variables were used in a logistic regression analysis to construct a score for super-response to SV which was internally validated using bootstrap method.

RESULTS

Out of 185 patients, 65 (35%) fulfilled the super-responder criteria. Predictors for super-response to SV were absence of both previous aldosterone antagonist and diuretic treatment, NYHA I-II class, female gender, previous 1-year HF admission, and sinus rhythm. An integrating score distinguished a low- (<25%), intermediate- (∼46%), and high-probability (>80%) for 1-year super-response to SV. The AUC for the model was 0.72 (95%CI: 0.64-0.80), remaining consistent after internal validation.

CONCLUSION

One-third of our patients presented a super-response to SV. We propose an easy-to-calculate score to predict super-response to SV after 1-year initiation based on variables that are currently assessed in clinical practice.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

PARADIGM-HF demonstrated superiority of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) over enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients in clinical practice may differ in their characteristics and overall risk compared with patients in clinical trials, and additional outcomes can be observed in real world (RW). Hence, a systematic review was conducted to identify and describe RW data on sac/val.

METHODS

RW studies evaluating the effects of sac/val in adult patients with HFrEF with a sample size ≥100 were identified via MEDLINE® and Embase® from 2015 to January 2020. Citations were screened, critically appraised and relevant data were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 68 unique studies were identified. Nearly half of the studies were conducted in Europe (n = 34), followed by the US (n = 15) and Asia (n = 11). Median follow-up period varied from 1 to 19 months. Mean age ranged between 48.7 and 79.0 years; patients were mostly male and in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II/III, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction varied between 23%and 38%. Of studies performing comparisons, most reported superior efficacy of sac/val in reducing the risk of HF hospitalisations, all-cause hospitalisations, and all-cause mortality as compared to standard-of-care. Many studies reported significant improvements in NYHA functional class and reduction in biomarker levels post sac/val. Hypotension and hyperkalaemia were the most frequently reported adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive overview of currently available RW evidence on sac/val complements the evidence from randomised controlled trials, substantiating its effectiveness in heterogeneous real-world HF populations.

Use of sacubitril/valsartan in non-compaction cardiomyopathy: a case report

The use of sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces death or hospitalization in patients with ejection fraction < 40%. There is no study evaluating this drug effects in non-compaction cardiomyopathy (NCCM) individuals. The aim of this article is to report a case of a patient with NCCM initially refractory to gold standard treatment and afterwards treated with sacubitril/valsartan and its improvements. This is a case report of a 48-year-old woman, presenting with NCCM heart failure, who had received standard guideline-directed medical therapy for 18 months without any improvement in clinical and echocardiographic parameters. After that period, sacubitril/valsartan was initiated. After 18 months of refractory usage of guideline-directed medical therapy, sacubitril/valsartan was started, and significant change in functional class (III to I) and important ventricular remodelling were achieved with an improvement of 29% in the ejection fraction, reduction of 7 mm in ventricular diastolic diameter, and mild to none mitral valve functional regurgitation. In this case report, sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with improvement of echocardiographic and clinical parameters in a patient with NCCM.

The impact of discontinuation of sacubitril-valsartan and shifting to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE

Many trials confirmed the role of sacubitril-valsartan in the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, there is no sufficient data to register the effect of compulsory discontinuation of sacubitril-valsartan, either because of finan-cial shortage or adverse effects, and shifting to the standard therapy, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB).

METHODS

The patients with HFrEF (LVEF ≤35%) were included in the study. They received treatment with sacubitril-valsartan as a replacement for an ACEI or ARB. The patients were divided into two groups: the compliant group (n=111). The non-compliant group (n=82), whose members discontinued sacubitril-valsartan after ≥5 months but <6 months since their enrollment in the study.

RESULTS

Initially, 199 patients with HFrEF were included in the study. All the patients were started treatment with sacubitril-valsartan in addition to the evidence-based standard therapy of heart failure. Six patients were excluded at the first follow-up visit (at 6 months). The remaining 193 patients showed initial improvement of the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, the end-diastolic volume (EDV), and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Five patients were excluded at the 12 months' follow-up visit. The other 188 patients were divided into two groups: Group I (n=108) patients were compliant on sacubitril-valsartan for 12 months; Group II (n=80) patients were compliant on sacubitril-valsartan for ≥5 months, but stopped it at <6 months, and were shifted to ACEI or evidence-based ARB. Group II (n=80) patients showed worsening of their NYHA class, compared to the 6 months' follow-up visit (p=0.001). LVEF and EDV were also shown to be worsened in these patients when we compared them to the values of the 6 months' follow-up appointment with p=0.001 for both parameters.

CONCLUSION

The discontinuation of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with HFrEF leads to deterioration of the LVEF as well as worsening of the functional class. The decline in LVEF and NYHA functional class occurs despite being compliant with the optimal conventional therapy with ACEI or evidence-based ARB.