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

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

BACKGROUND

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

HYPOTHESIS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Predicting Hospital Readmissions in Patients Receiving Novel-Dose Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy: A Competing-Risk, Causal Mediation Analysis

Backgrounds: Our study aimed to identify and predict patients with heart failure (HF) taking novel-dose Sacubitril/Valsartan (S/V) at risk for all-cause readmission, as well as investigate the possible role of left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR). Methods and results: There were 464 patients recruited from December 2017 to September 2021 in our hospital with a median follow-up of 660 days (range, 17-1494). Competing risk analysis with Gray's Test showed statistically significant differences in all-cause readmission (p-value< .001) across the three different dose groups. Models 1 and 2 were developed based on the results of univariable competing risk analysis, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator approach, backward stepwise regression, and multivariable competing risk analysis. The internal verification (data-splitting method) indicated that Model 1 had better discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility. The corresponding nomogram showed that patients aged 75 years and above, or taking the lowest-dose S/V (≤50 mg twice a day), or diagnosed with ventricular tachycardia, or valvular heart disease, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or diabetes mellitus were at the highest risk of all-cause readmission. In the causal mediation analysis, LVRR was considered as a critical mediator that negatively affected the difference of novel-dose S/V in readmission. Conclusions: A significant association was detected between novel-dose S/V and all-cause readmission in HF patients, in part negatively mediated by LVRR. The web-based nomogram could provide individual prediction of all-cause readmission in HF patients receiving novel-dose S/V. The effects of different novel-dose S/V are still needed to be explored further in the future.

Pharmacological Anti-Remodelling Effects of Disease-Modifying Drugs in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Cardiac remodelling is an adverse phenomenon linked to heart failure progression and an important contributor to heart failure severity. Cardiac remodelling could represent the real therapeutic goal in the treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, being potentially reversed through different pharmacotherapies. Currently, there are well-established drugs such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers and β-blockers with anti-remodelling effects; recently, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor effects on inhibiting cardiac remodelling (improving N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, echocardiographic parameters of reverse cardiac remodelling and right ventricular function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction) were demonstrated. More recently, hemodynamic consequences of gliflozins, reduced cardiac hydrostatic pressure as a possible cause of ventricular remodelling and hypertrophy were proposed to explain potential anti-remodelling effects of gliflozins. Gliflozins exert their cardioprotective effects by attenuating myofibroblast activity and collagen-mediated remodelling. Another postulated mechanism is represented by the reduction in sympathetic activity, through the reduction in renal afferent nervous activity and the suppression of central reflex mechanisms. Benefits of gliflozins on left ventricular hypertrophy, dilation, and systolic and diastolic function were also described. In this review, we aimed to provide a wide overview on cardiac remodelling with a particular focus on possible anti-remodelling effects of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors and gliflozins.

Differential impact of antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular remodeling: a review of findings and perspectives for HFpEF prevention

Heart failure (HF) is an important health problem worldwide whose stages have traditionally been classified from A to D. In addition, HF can be categorized as that with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and that with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Hypertension and arterial stiffness in stage A HF are major drivers of the progression to left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a criterion of stage B HF. Although the pathogenesis of HFpEF is heterogeneous, affected patients tend to be older than HFrEF patients and have a greater prevalence of hypertension, which is closely associated with arterial stiffness and LVH. Thus, to treat HFpEF, the optimal intervention for improving prognosis is an aggressive approach to early-stage, i.e., Stage A and B, HF. This paper reviews the findings on arterial stiffness and LVH using conventional antihypertensive drugs such as angiotensin receptor II blockers (ARBs) and a new drug class for HF, ARB/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNi). Previous studies have suggested that the combination of an ARB with an L-T-type calcium channel blocker might be recommended for the improvement of arterial stiffness and regression of LVH. More recent research has shown that ARNi also improves central BP, which leads to a reduced afterload and a significant reduction in LVH. For optimal treatment of HFpEF, drug therapy should directly address arterial stiffness as well as hypertension.