Left ventricular structure and function in relation to sodium dietary intake and renal handling in untreated Chinese patients

Whether left ventricular structure and function is associated with sodium dietary intake and renal handling while considering blood pressure (BP) remains unclear. Consecutive untreated patients referred for ambulatory BP monitoring were recruited. Standard echocardiography was performed to measure left ventricular structure and function. Fractional excretion of lithium (FELi) and fractional distal reabsorption rate of sodium (FDRNa) were calculated as markers of proximal and distal tubular sodium handling, respectively. The 952 participants (51.0% women; mean age, 50.8 years) included 614 (64.5%) ambulatory hypertension and 103 (10.8%) left ventricular hypertrophy. There were significant interactions of urinary sodium excretion with FELi (P ≤ 0.045), but not FDRNa (P ≥ 0.36), in relation to left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPW), mass (LVM) and mass index (LVMI), but not functional measurements. Only in tertile 1 of FELi, the multivariate-adjusted regression coefficients for urinary sodium excretion reached statistical significance (P ≤ 0.049), being 0.16 ± 0.05 mm, 4.32 ± 1.48 g, and 1.64 ± 0.83 g/m2 for LVPW, LVM and LVMI, respectively. In mutually adjusted analyses, the regression coefficient for LVMI was statistically significant for FELi, FDRNa and 24-h systolic BP, being -2.17 ± 0.49, -1.95 ± 0.54, and 2.99 ± 0.51 g/m2, respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis of variance showed that sodium renal handling indexes (P ≥ 0.14), but not sodium urinary excretion (P = 0.007), were similarly as 24-h BP associated with LVMI. Heat maps on left ventricular hypertrophy provided a graphical confirmation of the findings. Sodium dietary intake and renal handling interact to be associated with left ventricular structure. Renal handling indexes were similarly in size as, jointly in action with and independently of 24-h BP.

Resistant hypertension: diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment a clinical consensus statement from the Thai hypertension society

Resistant hypertension (RH) includes hypertensive patients with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) while receiving ≥3 BP-lowering medications or with controlled BP while receiving ≥4 BP-lowering medications. The exact prevalence of RH is challenging to quantify. However, a reasonable estimate of true RH is around 5% of the hypertensive population. Patients with RH have higher cardiovascular risk as compared with hypertensive patients in general. Standardized office BP measurement, confirmation of medical adherence, search for drug- or substance-induced BP elevation, and ambulatory or home BP monitoring are mandatory to exclude pseudoresistance. Appropriate further investigations, guided by clinical data, should be pursued to exclude possible secondary causes of hypertension. The management of RH includes the intensification of lifestyle interventions and the modification of antihypertensive drug regimens. The essential aspects of lifestyle modification include sodium restriction, body weight control, regular exercise, and healthy sleep. Step-by-step adjustment of the BP-lowering drugs based on the available evidence is proposed. The suitable choice of diuretics according to patients' renal function is presented. Sacubitril/valsartan can be carefully substituted for the prior renin-angiotensin system blockers, especially in those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. If BP remains uncontrolled, device therapy such as renal nerve denervation should be considered. Since device-based treatment is an invasive and costly procedure, it should be used only after careful and appropriate case selection. In real-world practice, the management of RH should be individualized depending on each patient's characteristics.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection Combined With Mild Hypertension

BACKGROUND

Optimal antihypertensive medication for chronic type B aortic dissection (AD) remains undecided. This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan to determine suitable antihypertensive drug combinations.

METHODS

In this single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic Stanford type B AD and mild hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 100/200 mg or valsartan 80/160 mg. The primary endpoint was the reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) at week 8 in patients with sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan. Key secondary endpoints included changes in (i) mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP); (ii) pulse pressure (PP); and (iii) mean ambulatory blood pressure (BP) for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300073399.

RESULTS

A total of 315 patients completed the study. Sacubitril/valsartan provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than valsartan at week 8 (between-treatment difference: -5.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval -5.8 to -4.5], P < 0.001). Reductions in msSBP, msDBP, and PP as well as the mean ambulatory BP for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime, were significantly greater in sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (all P < 0.001). No excessive episodes of AEs occurred in the sacubitril/valsartan group.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced BP compared with baseline values. However, sacubitril/valsartan improved BP control to a greater extent than valsartan. It may offer a new treatment option for patients with mild hypertension and chronic type B AD.

Prevention and treatment of hypertensive left ventricular hypertrophy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (LVH) is a well recognized target organ adaptation to longstanding uncontrolled hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors. It is also a strong and independent predictor of many cardiovascular disorders.

RECENT FINDINGS

This focused review explores the current concepts in screening, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of LVH in patients with hypertension. Currently, the primary screening and diagnostic tools for LVH are ECG and 2D echocardiography. Implementing machine learning in the diagnostic modalities can improve sensitivity in the detection of LVH. Lifestyle modifications, blood pressure control with antihypertensive therapy, and management of comorbidities aid in preventing and reversing LV remodeling.

SUMMARY

LVH is a common and often silent complication of hypertension. Prevention and reversal of LV remodeling are crucial for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with hypertension.

Treatment with Sacubitril/Valsartan Effectively Manages Hypertension and Ameliorates Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Hemodialysis Patients

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of sacubitril/valsartan in managing hypertension and cardiac remodeling in patients undergoing hemodialysis.

METHODS

Hemodialysis patients with stable blood pressure control were enrolled in the study. Sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed to replace previously used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker or other antihypertensive drugs. During a 6-month follow-up period, pre-dialysis blood pressure, routine biochemical markers, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels were measured. Volume status was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis. Endothelial damage was evaluated by measuring asymmetric dimethylarginine expression, while echocardiography and life quality assessed by Short Form-12 Health Survey were conducted at baseline and after treatment.

RESULTS

The median daily dose of sacubitril/valsartan in 32 participants was 200 mg, and no obvious adverse reactions were reported. The defined daily dose of other antihypertensive drugs (baseline 2.00 ± 1.18, end point 1.46 ± 1.30, t = 3.216, p = 0.003) reduced significantly. After treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, left ventricular ejection fraction significantly increased from 64.81 ± 8.16% to 67.55 ± 5.85% (t = -4.022, p ≤ 0.001) and the thickness of posterior wall of the left ventricle reduced from 1.05 ± 0.14 cm to 1.00 ± 0.11 cm (t = 2.063, p = 0.048). The interventricular septal thickness (baseline 1.08 ± 0.16 cm, endpoint 1.02 ± 0.12 cm, t = 2.260, p = 0.031) remarkably reduced by the end of follow-up. The tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient decreased from 28.47 ± 8.26 mm Hg at baseline to 23.79 ± 6.61 mm Hg (t = 2.531, p = 0.020) after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Sacubitril/valsartan effectively manages hypertension in hemodialysis patients and may also independently improve left ventricular hypertrophy and systolic function, regardless of changes in the blood pressure or the volume load.

Prognostic implications of heart failure stages among Chinese community populations: insight from a nationwide population-based study

Background

In light of high burden of heart failure (HF) in China, studies of prognostic implication of HF stages are important. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between HF stages and mortality risk in Chinese community populations.

Methods

Nationwide representative populations aged ≥35 years (n = 23,284, mean age 56.9 years, women 53.2%) were enrolled from 2012 to 2016. According to the international HF guidelines, participants were divided into stage A, B and C, and those who did not qualify these stages were categorized as apparently-healthy group. Association between HF stages and all-cause, cardiovascular [CV] and non-CV death was evaluated using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional regression analysis.

Findings

During a median follow-up of 4.7 years (109,902.8 person-years), 1314 deaths occurred. Age-adjusted incidence rate of all-cause death was 5.3 in apparently-healthy, 7.8 in stage A, 8.6 in stage B and 24.6 in stage C groups per 1000 person-years. In reference to apparently-healthy group, adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause death was 1.90 (95% CI: 1.47-2.45), 2.43 (95% CI: 1.89-3.13) and 6.40 (95% CI: 4.56-8.99) for stage A, B and C. Advancing HF stages were associated with increasing risks for all-cause, CV and non-CV death (P-trend <0.05). For all-cause death, population attributable fraction due to stage A, B and C were 21.2%, 33.4% and 4.9%, accounting for 1,933,385, 3,045,993 and 446,867 deaths in China in 2018.

Interpretation

Advancing HF stages were associated with increasing risk mortality. Development and implementation of early screening and targeted interventions are urgently needed to reduce HF burdens in China.

Funding

This work was supported by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (grant 2017-I2M-1-004), the Projects in the Chinese National Science & Technology Pillar Program during the Twelfth Five-year Plan Period (No.: 2011BAI11B01), and the Project Entrusted by the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China (NHC2020-609).

Comparison of sacubitril/valsartan with olmesartan for hypertension: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan remains controversial for the control of hypertension. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on the control of hypertension.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed, Embase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through July 2023 for randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus olmesartan on the control of hypertension. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model or fixed-effect model based on the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials and 3677 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with olmesartan treatment for hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with substantially decreased systolic blood pressure (mean difference [MD] = -4.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -7.90 to -1.25; P = .007), diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.70; 95% CI = -3.24 to -0.17; P = .03), and pulse pressure (MD = -2.31; 95% CI = -4.41 to -0.21; P = .03), as well as improved systolic blood pressure control (odds ratio [OR] = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.38; P = .006), but had no influence on diastolic blood pressure control (OR = 1.33; 95% CI = 0.93 to 1.88; P = .11) or adverse events (OR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.24; P = .51).

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan is better than olmesartan for the reduction of blood pressure for patients with hypertension.

Current experimental and early investigational agents for cardiac fibrosis: where are we at?

INTRODUCTION

Myocardial fibrosis (MF) is induced by factors activating pro-fibrotic pathways such as acute and prolonged inflammation, myocardial ischemic events, hypertension, aging process, and genetically-linked cardiomyopathies. Dynamics and characteristics of myocardial fibrosis development are very different. The broad range of myocardial fibrosis presentations suggests the presence of multiple potential targets.

AREA COVERED

Heart failure treatment involves medications primarily aimed at counteracting neurohormonal activation. While these drugs have demonstrated efficacy against MF, not all specifically target inflammation or fibrosis progression with some exceptions such as RAAS inhibitors. Consequently, new therapies are being developed to address this issue. This article is aimed to describe anti-fibrotic drugs currently employed in clinical practice and emerging agents that target specific pathways, supported by evidence from both preclinical and clinical studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite various preclinical findings suggesting the potential utility of new drugs and molecules for treating cardiac fibrosis in animal models, there is a notable scarcity of clinical trials investigating these effects. However, the pathology of damage and repair in the heart muscle involves a complex network of interconnected inflammatory pathways and various types of immune cells. Our comprehension of the positive and negative roles played by specific immune cells and cytokines is an emerging area of research.

Left ventricular reverse remodeling following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and low blood pressure

Sacubitril/valsartan has become an important first-line drug for symptomatic heart failure (HF) patients, especially with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%. However, the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular outcomes, especially LV reverse remodeling for such patients with low blood pressure, remains uncertain. We retrospectively studied 164 HF patients with LVEF < 50% who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan from two institutions. Echocardiography was performed before and 9.5 ± 5.1 months after initiation of maximum tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan. The maximum tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan was lower for the low blood pressure group (≤ 100 mmHg in systole) than for the non-low blood pressure group (> 100 mmHg in systole) (165 ± 106 mg vs. 238 ± 124 mg, P = 0.017). As expected, significant LV reverse remodeling was observed in the non-low blood pressure group after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan. It was noteworthy that significant LV reverse remodeling was also observed in the low blood pressure group after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan (LV end-diastolic volume: 177.3 ± 66.0 mL vs. 137.7 ± 56.1 mL, P < 0.001, LV end-systolic volume: 131.6 ± 60.3 mL vs. 94.6 ± 55.7 mL, P < 0.001, LVEF: 26.8 ± 10.3% vs. 33.8 ± 13.6%, P = 0.015). Relative changes in LV volumes and LVEF after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan were similar for the two groups. In conclusion, significant LV reverse remodeling occurred after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, even in HF patients with LVEF < 50% and systolic blood pressure ≤ 100 mmHg.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

Hypertensive Heart Disease: A Narrative Review Series-Part 3: Vasculature, Biomarkers and the Matrix of Hypertensive Heart Disease

Over the last few decades, research efforts have resulted in major advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of hypertensive heart disease (HHD). This is the third part of a three-part review series. Here, we focus on the influence of high blood pressure on the micro- and macroalterations that occur in the vasculature in HHD. We also provide an overview of circulating cardiac biomarkers that may prove useful for a better understanding of the pathophysiology, development and progression of HHD, and may play a unique role in the diagnostic and prognostic evaluation of patients with HHD, taking into account their properties showing as abnormal long before the onset of the disease. In the conclusion, we propose an updated definition of HHD and a matrix for clinical classification, which we suspect will be useful in practice, allowing an individual approach to HHD patients.

What Is the Current Best Drug Treatment for Hypertensive Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction? Review of the Totality of Evidence

BACKGROUND

More than 90% of patients developing heart failure (HF) have an epidemiological background of hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease, all disorders/diseases closely related to hypertension.

METHODS

HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

RESULTS

For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, subsequently, they have been investigated and, as we see it, documented as beneficial in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) and mostly hypertensive etiology, with effect estimates assessed partly on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.

The Prevention of the New Onset of Heart Failure in Hypertensive Patients

In 2014, Japan was estimated to have approximately 27 million patients with hypertension (HT), and the ultimate goal of treatment is to prevent complications of HT, including heart failure (HF). The major structural changes in the heart that cause HF are left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (LVH) and the resulting LV diastolic dysfunction. However, in patients with HT with well-controlled blood pressure (BP), whether they are in HF stage A (only HT) or B (with organic heart disease) is often unclear. It has been reported that strict BP control suppresses LVH, and the improvement of LVH leads to the suppression of cardiovascular complications. Thus, detecting HF stage B HT and providing appropriate treatment lead to the suppression of HF onset. This review focuses on the detection and treatment of organic heart disease in HT.

Longitudinal Changes in Natriuretic Peptides and Reverse Cardiac Remodeling in Patients with Heart Failure Treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan Across the Left Ventricular Ejection Traction Spectrum

Sacubitril/valsartan improves outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. However, the relationship between longitudinal changes in natriuretic peptides and echocardiographic parameters in patients with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan across the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) range is not fully understood.In patients with HF treated with sacubitril/valsartan, comprehensive data on natriuretic peptides, including atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), BNP, and echocardiography, were measured after 6 months of treatment. We assessed the change in natriuretic peptides and echocardiographic parameters in LVEF classification subgroups.Among 49 patients, the median ANP concentration increased from 55 pg/mL at baseline to 78 pg/mL (P < 0.001). The NT-proBNP concentration decreased from 250 pg/mL to 146 pg/mL (P < 0.001). No significant change was observed in the BNP concentration (P = 0.640). The trajectories of each natriuretic peptide in patients with LVEF > 40% (n = 22) were similar to those in individuals with LVEF ≤ 40% (n = 27). Regardless of LVEF classification, echocardiography at 6 months showed a significant improvement in LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic volume, and the ratio of early diastolic mitral inflow velocity to early diastolic mitral annulus velocity (E/e'). The reduction in natriuretic peptide concentration was related to LV reverse remodeling and decreased left and right atrial pressures assessed by E/e' and inferior vena cava diameter.Sacubitril/valsartan induced an increase in ANP, a reduction in NT-proBNP, and no change in plasma BNP, regardless of LVEF. It caused LV reverse remodeling, and the natriuretic peptide concentration changes were associated with structural and functional echocardiographic parameters.

The Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared to Olmesartan on the Blood Pressure and Glucolipid Metabolism in DM Patients with Primary Hypertension

PURPOSE

Given the beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan on blood pressure generally, this study investigates its antihypertension effects in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with primary hypertension specifically, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on glycolipid metabolism.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, open-label, active-controlled study to compare the antihypertension effects of sacubitril/valsartan in DM individuals with primary hypertension. The primary end point was reduction in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) from baseline with sacubitril/valsartan vs. olmesartan at week 8. The secondary endpoints included the changes in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), daytime SBP/DBP, nighttime SBP/DBP, BP achievement (office sitting BP < 130/80 mmHg), and lipid profile. The trial was registered with chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2200066428) on Dec 22, 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 124 patients were included in the final analysis. SBP decreased to a greater extent in the sacubitril/valsartan group from baseline to 8 weeks [between-treatment difference: 3.51 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.41 to 6.62 mm Hg, P = 0.03]. Furthermore, more patients achieved the blood pressure goal with sacubitril/valasartan (74.60% vs. 54.70%, P = 0.03). Multiple logistical regression analysis showed that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with BP achievement [odds ratio (OR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.14-0.73, P = 0.007], but the difference in SBP, DBP, day time SBP/DBP, and night time SBP/DBP reduction did not approach statistical significance. HbA1C1, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol were lower than baseline in both groups (P < 0.05); however, there was no difference in the effects on glucose and lipid metabolism from sacubitril/valsartan compared to olmesartan.

CONCLUSIONS

Sacubitril/valsartan not only provided superior BP reduction compared to olmesartan, it did so without adverse effects on glycemic control and lipid parameters in DM patients with primary hypertension.

Prevalence of heart failure stages in the general population and implications for heart failure prevention: reports from the China Hypertension Survey 2012-15

AIMS

There are no nationwide epidemiological data on heart failure (HF) stages in China. Knowledge of the prevalence of HF stages is crucial for planning HF prevention and management strategies. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of HF stages in the general Chinese population and the specific prevalence by age, sex, and urbanity.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a cross-sectional study and national representative general population aged ≥ 35 years (n = 31 494, mean age 57.4 years, women 54.1%) were obtained from the China Hypertension Survey. Participants were divided into Stage A (at-risk for HF), Stage B (pre-HF), and Stage C (symptomatic HF). Survey weights were calculated based on the 2010 China population census data. The prevalence of Stage A was 35.8% (≈245.1 million), Stage B 42.8% (≈293.1 million), and Stage C 1.1% (≈7.5 million). The prevalence of Stages B and C increased with increasing age (P < 0.0001). Women had lower prevalence of Stage A (32.6% vs. 39.3%; P < 0.0001) but higher prevalence of Stage B (45.9% vs. 39.5%; P < 0.0001) than men. People from rural area had lower prevalence of Stage A (31.9% vs. 41.0%; P < 0.0001) but higher prevalence of Stage B (47.8% vs. 36.2%; P < 0.0001) than people from urban. The prevalence of Stage C was similar by sex and urbanity.

CONCLUSION

The burdens of pre-clinical and clinical HF are high and vary by age, sex, and urbanity in China. Targeted interventions are needed to reduce the high burden of pre-clinical and clinical HF.

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Hypertension and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the effect of radiofrequency ablation can be improved by using sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) to control blood pressure in hypertensive patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

A total of 63 and 67 hypertension patients with persistent atrial fibrillation were enrolled in an S/V group and ACEI/ARB group, respectively. All patients underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA). The blood pressure of the two groups was controlled within the range of 100-140 mmHg (high pressure) and 60-90 mmHg (low pressure). The clinical outcomes of the two groups were observed after 12 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant differences in blood pressure were observed between the S/V and ACEI/ARB groups. In addition, the recurrence rate of atrial fibrillation between the two groups was not different. The left atrial diameter was an independent predictor of recurrence (HR = 1.063, P = 0.008). However, in the heart failure subgroup, the recurrence rate of S/V was significantly lower than that of the ACEI/ARB group (P = 0.005), and Cox regression analysis showed that the recurrence risk of atrial fibrillation of the S/V group was 0.302 lower than that of the ACEI/ARB group. NT-proBNP, LVEF, and LAD were significantly improved in hypertension patients with heart failure when comparing cases before and at the end of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

S/V is better than ACEI/ARB in reducing the recurrence of persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with hypertension and heart failure after RFCA.

Hypertensive Heart Disease: A Narrative Review Series-Part 2: Macrostructural and Functional Abnormalities

Hypertensive heart disease (HHD) remains a major global public health concern despite the implementation of new approaches for the management of hypertensive patients. The pathological changes occurring during HHD are complex and involve the development of structural and functional cardiac abnormalities. HHD describes a broad spectrum ranging from uncontrolled hypertension and asymptomatic left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), either a concentric or an eccentric pattern, to the final development of clinical heart failure. Pressure-overload-induced LVH is recognised as the most important predictor of heart failure and sudden death and is associated with an increased risk of cardiac arrhythmias. Cardiac arrhythmias are considered to be one of the most important comorbidities affecting hypertensive patients. This is the second part of a three-part set of review articles. Here, we focus on the macrostructural and functional abnormalities associated with chronic high pressure, their involvement in HHD pathophysiology, and their role in the progression and prognosis of HHD.

Sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan in regressing myocardial fibrosis in hypertension: a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint clinical trial protocol

Background

Diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis is a key common pathological manifestation in hypertensive heart disease (HHD) progressing to heart failure (HF). Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi), now a front-line treatment for HF, confer benefits independent of blood pressure, signifying a multifactorial mode of action beyond hemodynamic regulation. We aim to test the hypothesis that compared with angiotensin II receptor blockade (ARB) alone, ARNi is more effective in regressing diffuse interstitial myocardial fibrosis in HHD.

Methods

Role of ARNi in Ventricular Remodeling in Hypertensive LVH (REVERSE-LVH) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded endpoint (PROBE) clinical trial. Adults with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) according to Asian sex- and age-specific thresholds on cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging are randomized to treatment with either sacubitril/valsartan (an ARNi) or valsartan (an ARB) in 1:1 ratio for a duration of 52 weeks, at the end of which a repeat CMR is performed to assess differential changes from baseline between the two groups. The primary endpoint is the change in CMR-derived diffuse interstitial fibrosis volume. Secondary endpoints include changes in CMR-derived left ventricular mass, volumes, and functional parameters. Serum samples are collected and stored to assess the effects of ARNi, compared with ARB, on circulating biomarkers of cardiac remodeling. The endpoints will be analyzed with reference to the corresponding baseline parameters to evaluate the therapeutic effect of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan.

Discussion

REVERSE-LVH will examine the anti-fibrotic potential of sacubitril/valsartan and will offer mechanistic insights into the clinical benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in hypertension in relation to cardiac remodeling. Advancing the knowledge of the pathophysiology of HHD will consolidate effective risk stratification and personalized treatment through a multimodal manner integrating complementary CMR and biomarkers into the conventional care approach.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT03553810.

Sacubitril/Valsartan Shows Improvement of the Cardio-Ankle Vascular Index in a Hypertensive Patient

A 72-year-old man presented to our clinic with hypertension. Arterial stiffness evaluated by cardio ankle vascular index (CAVI) was markedly increased at 13.5. We treated him using 80 mg/day of valsartan for three months. CAVI was decreased from 13.5 to 13.0. However, his BP fluctuations were still high. We changed the treatment to angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) with increasing doses up to 400 mg. Independent of the change in blood pressure at the time of measurement, CAVI improved with ARNI dose. Hypertension treatment with an awareness of the cardio-vascular interaction might be a possibility prevents future heart failure development effectively.

Hypertensive heart disease: risk factors, complications and mechanisms

Hypertensive heart disease constitutes functional and structural dysfunction and pathogenesis occurring primarily in the left ventricle, the left atrium and the coronary arteries due to chronic uncontrolled hypertension. Hypertensive heart disease is underreported and the mechanisms underlying its correlates and complications are not well elaborated. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of hypertensive heart disease, we discuss in detail the mechanisms associated with development and complications of hypertensive heart disease especially left ventricular hypertrophy, atrial fibrillation, heart failure and coronary artery disease. We also briefly highlight the role of dietary salt, immunity and genetic predisposition in hypertensive heart disease pathogenesis.

Natriuretic peptides potentiate cardiac hypertrophic response to noradrenaline in rats

Excessive activation of the sympathetic nervous system is involved in cardiovascular damage including cardiac hypertrophy. Natriuretic peptides are assumed to exert protective actions for the heart, alleviating hypertrophy and/or fibrosis of the myocardium. In contrast to this assumption, we show in the present study that both atrial and C-type natriuretic peptides (ANP and CNP) potentiate cardiac hypertrophic response to noradrenaline (NA) in rats. Nine-week-old male Wistar rats were continuously infused with subcutaneous 30 micro-g/h NA without or with persistent intravenous administration of either 1.0 micro-g/h ANP or CNP for 14 days. Blood pressure (BP) was recorded under an unrestrained condition by a radiotelemetry system. Cardiac hypertrophic response to NA was evaluated by heart weight/body weight (HW/BW) ratio and microscopic measurement of myocyte size of the left ventricle. Mean BP levels at the light and dark cycles rose by about 20mmHg following NA infusion for 14 days, with slight increases in HW/BW ratio and ventricular myocyte size. Infusions of ANP and CNP had no significant effects on mean BP in NA-infused rats, while two natriuretic peptides potentiated cardiac hypertrophic response to NA. Cardiac hypertrophy induced by co-administration of NA and ANP was attenuated by treatment with prazosin or atenolol. In summary, both ANP and CNP potentiated cardiac hypertrophic effect of continuously infused NA in rats, suggesting a possible pro-hypertrophic action of natriuretic peptides on the heart.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Exercise Capacity in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction and the Role of Percentage of Delayed Enhancement Measured by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Predicting Therapeutic Response: A Multicentre Study

Background: This study aims to evaluate the cardiopulmonary effects of sacubitril/valsartan therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), investigating a possible correlation with the degree of myocardial fibrosis, as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance. Methods: A total of 134 outpatients with HFrEF were enrolled. Results: After a mean follow-up of 13.3 ± 6.6 months, an improvement in ejection fraction and a reduction in E/A ratio, inferior vena cava size and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels were observed. At follow-up, we observed an increase in VO₂ peak of 16% (p<0.0001) and in O₂ pulse of 13% (p=0.0002) as well as an improvement in ventilatory response associated with a 7% reduction in the VE/VCO₂ slope (p=0.0001). An 8% increase in the ΔVO₂/Δ work ratio and an 18% increase in exercise tolerance were also observed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the main predictors of events during follow-up were VE/VCO₂ slope >34 (OR 3.98; 95% CI [1.59-10.54]; p=0.0028); ventilatory oscillatory pattern (OR 4.65; 95% CI [1.55-16.13]; p=0.0052); and haemoglobin level (OR 0.35; 95% CI [0.21-0.55]; p<0.0001). In patients who had cardiac magnetic resonance, when delayed enhancement >4.6% was detected, a lower response after sacubitril/valsartan therapy was observed as expressed by improvement in ΔVO₂ peak, O₂ pulse, LVEF and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. No significant differences were observed in ΔVO₂/Δ work and VE/VCO₂ slope. Conclusion:Sacubitril/valsartan improves cardiopulmonary functional capacity in HFrEF patients. The presence of myocardial fibrosis on cardiac magnetic resonance is a predictor of response to therapy.

Sinus node dysfunction and atrial fibrillation-Relationships, clinical phenotypes, new mechanisms, and treatment approaches

Although the anatomical basis of the pathogenesis of sinus node dysfunction (SND) and atrial fibrillation (AF) is located primarily in the left and right atria, increasing evidence suggests a strong correlation between SND and AF, in terms of both clinical presentation and formation mechanisms. However, the exact mechanisms underlying this association are unclear. The relationship between SND and AF may not be causal, but is likely to involve common factors and mechanisms, including ion channel remodeling, gap junction abnormalities, structural remodeling, genetic mutations, neuromodulation abnormalities, the effects of adenosine on cardiomyocytes, oxidative stress, and viral infections. Ion channel remodeling manifests primarily as alterations in the "funny" current (I_f) and Ca²⁺ clock associated with cardiomyocyte autoregulation, and gap junction abnormalities are manifested primarily as decreased expression of connexins (Cxs) mediating electrical impulse propagation in cardiomyocytes. Structural remodeling refers primarily to fibrosis and cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Some genetic mutations can also cause arrhythmias, such as SCN5A, HCN4, EMD, and PITX2. The intrinsic cardiac autonomic nervous system (ICANS), a regulator of the heart's physiological functions, triggers arrhythmias.In addition, we discuss arrhythmias caused by viral infections, notably Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Similarly to upstream treatments for atrial cardiomyopathy such as alleviating CA, ganglionated plexus (GP) ablation acts on the common mechanisms between SND and AF, thus achieving a dual therapeutic effect.

Effectiveness and safety evaluation of sacubitril/valsartan in blood pressure control and clinical outcomes for elderly patients with heart failure and hypertension: A prospective cohort study

AIM

This study was conducted to investigate the safety and effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) for elderly patients with hypertension and heart failure in the real-world setting.

METHODS

Patients with established hypertension complicated with structural or functional impairment of ventricular fillings [New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV)] were enrolled. The effectiveness of sac/val in terms of BP reduction and improvement in frailty and echocardiographic evaluation of cardiac function were examined from baseline to 6-month administration.

RESULTS

Overall, 241 patients were treated with sac/val and 227 with renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) for hypertension control. There were significant difference in the degree of systolic blood pressure reduction between two groups. Echocardiography showed that sac/val significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction [4.0% (95% CI: 2.0-7.5) vs -1.0 (95% CI: -4.0-2.0), P = 0.001] during the follow-up visits. Significant improvements in NYHA function class and FRAIL scores post sac/val were observed after 3 and 6 month treatment. The rate of primary cardiovascular composite outcome was higher in patients in the RAASi group (26.9%; 95% CI: 19.6-34.0) than in the sac/val group (22.0%; 95% CI: 16.7-27.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Sac/val may be useful not only for reducing BP, but also for improving the structural and functional parameters of echocardiography, eventually resulting in a significant improvement of the overall symptomatic status, a significant reduction in NYHA class, and functional improvement.

Cost Effectiveness of the First-in-Class ARNI (Sacubitril/Valsartan) for the Treatment of Essential Hypertension in a Chinese Setting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to model the potential long-term disease progression and pharmacoeconomic value of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model with five health states was constructed to simulate the incidence of acute cardiovascular events and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with sacubitril/valsartan compared with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan over a lifetime horizon with an annual cycle. Multivariable risk regression models derived from China-PAR data accompanied by hazard ratios were used to transform the dual mechanism of sacubitril/valsartan to lower blood pressure and left ventricular mass index into long-term fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular risks. Efficacy data were calculated using a network meta-analysis integrated by the results of clinical trials. Healthcare costs were determined from a real-world study and published literature, supplemented by expert opinion. Utilities were derived from literature. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 5.0% annually, and prices corresponded to 2021. Model validation, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of results.

RESULTS

For simulated patients with hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan reduced the rates of myocardial infarction by 6.67% and 6.39%, stroke by 9.38% and 8.98%, and heart failure hospitalization by 9.92% and 9.62% relative to allisartan isoproxil and valsartan, respectively. It was also associated with gains in life expectancy among hypertensive individuals of 0.362-0.382 years. Eventually, lifetime costs per patient were CN¥59,272 (US$9187) for sacubitril/valsartan, CN¥54,783 (US$8492) for allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥56,714 (US$8791) for valsartan; total QALYs were 11.38, 11.24, and 11.25, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was CN¥31,805/QALY (US$4930/QALY) compared with allisartan isoproxil, and CN¥19,247/QALY (US$2983/QALY) compared with valsartan, both of which are below the one time per-capita GDP of CN¥80,976/QALY (US$12,551/QALY) in China. Similar results were obtained in various extensive sensitivity analysis scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

This was the first study to evaluate the cost effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of hypertension. Sacubitril/valsartan compares favorably with allisartan isoproxil and valsartan in the Chinese setting, which is mainly due to its higher efficacy resulting in fewer cardiovascular events and ultimately less related mortality over time. The results could inform deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment in China and may provide reference for facilitating more reasonable and efficient allocation of limited resources in such low- and middle-income countries.

Effect of add-on sacubitril/valsartan on the left ventricular hypertrophy of a patient with hypertension

The combination of sacubitril and valsartan has recently become eligible for reimbursement in Japan for the treatment of hypertension. However, the real-world clinical efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with hypertension who are taking multiple anti-hypertensive medications remains to be characterized. We treated a man in his late 40s who had undergone a percutaneous coronary intervention and had hypertension that was refractory to multiple anti-hypertensive medications. We initiated sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg/day as an add-on therapy, and 3 months later, his blood pressure had decreased from 154/78 mmHg to 134/70 mmHg, in the absence of any drug-related adverse events. Furthermore, his left ventricular mass index had improved from 135 g/m² to 112 g/m². Thus, sacubitril/valsartan might ameliorate hypertrophy in patients with hypertension.

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.

Hypertension management in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities

Arterial hypertension is a leading cause of death globally. Due to ageing, the rising incidence of obesity, and socioeconomic and environmental changes, its incidence increases worldwide. Hypertension commonly coexists with Type 2 diabetes, obesity, dyslipidaemia, sedentary lifestyle, and smoking leading to risk amplification. Blood pressure lowering by lifestyle modifications and antihypertensive drugs reduce cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Guidelines recommend dual- and triple-combination therapies using renin–angiotensin system blockers, calcium channel blockers, and/or a diuretic. Comorbidities often complicate management. New drugs such as angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists improve CV and renal outcomes. Catheter-based renal denervation could offer an alternative treatment option in comorbid hypertension associated with increased sympathetic nerve activity. This review summarises the latest clinical evidence for managing hypertension with CV comorbidities.

Network meta-analysis of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of essential hypertension

Aim

Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients, but the best dose remains unclear. We performed this network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of three available doses of sacubitril/valsartan (i.e., 100, 200, and 400 mg).

Methods and results

We searched four databases for relevant studies published before January 2022. Mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the sitting position (msSBP and msDBP) and ambulatory condition (24-h maSBP and maDBP) and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 5474 patients were included. Sacubitril/valsartan 200 mg once daily was slightly better than 400 mg once daily in lowering 24-h maDBP (MD, 1.31 mmHg; 95% CI 0.61–2.01 mmHg), slightly better than 100 mg once daily in lowering 24-h maSBP (MD, − 3.70 mmHg; 95% CI  − 6.22 to − 1.18 mmHg) and 24-h maDBP (MD, − 2.98; 95% CI − 5.11 to − 0.85), and slightly better than Valsartan 160 mg once daily in lowering 24-h maSBP (MD, − 3.23 mmHg; 95% CI, − 5.25 to − 1.21). 400 mg once daily of sacubitril/valsartan was better than 200 mg once daily in lowering msDBP (MD, − 9.38 mmHg; 95% CI − 17.79 to − 0.97 mmHg). Interestingly, 400 mg once daily of sacubitril/valsartan had fewer trial-specified AEs than 200 mg once daily (OR, 0.74; 95%CI 0.55–0.99). There was no statistical difference for the remaining comparisons.

Conclusions

In hypertensive patients, 200 mg once daily of sacubitril/valsartan may exert a greater reduction in ambulatory blood pressure than 100 mg once daily and 200 mg once daily may not be inferior to 400 mg once daily. Moreover, it is not clear that sacubitril/valsartan lowers blood pressure more than an angiotensin receptor blocker. Further trials are required to determine the incremental value of sacubitril/valsartan as an anti-hypertensive agent.

Graphical abstract

Transcriptomic profile analysis of the left atrium in spontaneously hypertensive rats in the early stage

Left atrial remodeling, characterized by enlargement and hypertrophy of the left atrium and increased fibrosis, was accompanied by an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation. While before morphological changes at the early stage of hypertension, how overloaded hypertension influences the transcriptomic profile of the left atrium remains unclear. Therefore, RNA-sequencing was performed to define the RNA expressing profiles of left atrium in spontaneously hypertensive rats (SHRs) and normotensive Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) rats as a control group. We also compared the changes in the RNA expression profiles in SHRs treated with an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to assess the distinct effects on the left atrium. In total, 1,558 differentially expressed genes were found in the left atrium between WKY rats and SHRs. Bioinformatics analysis showed that these mRNAs could regulate upstream pathways in atrial remodeling through atrial fibrosis, inflammation, electrical remodeling, and cardiac metabolism. The regulated transcripts detected in the left atrial tissue in both the ARB-treated and ARNI-treated groups were related to metabolism. In contrast to the ARB-treated rates, the transcripts in ARNI-treated rats were mapped to the cyclic guanosine monophosphate-protein kinase G signaling pathway.

Progress and prospects of Sacubitril/Valsartan: Based on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is present in nearly half of patients with heart failure. The prevalence of heart failure with normal or near-normal ejection fractions increases more rapidly than in patients with reduced ejection fractions. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), aldosterone antagonist, β-blocker, and calcium channel blocker have not shown significant efficacy in HFpEF clinical trials. Sacubitril/Valsartan, combined angiotensin receptor blocker (Valsartan) with neprilysin inhibitor (Sacubitril), was the first-of-its-kind angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) to be developed. It has shown significant efficacy on HFpEF in recent studies. It is considered that most of the current Sacubitril/Valsartan studies are still concentrated in the field of heart failure, especially heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This review discusses the latest advances in cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic aspects of Sacubitril/Valsartan, mainly in HFpEF, providing more evidence for further future research on Sacubitril/Valsartan and raising issues that should be paid attention. At the same time, this review will introduce the academic consensus on Sacubitril/Valsartan in treating HFpEF in China.

Central hypertension is a non-negligible cardiovascular risk factor

High blood pressure (BP) confers cardiovascular risk. However, the clinical value of central BP remains debatable. In this article, we aim to briefly review the prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment of central hypertension. Central and brachial BPs are closely correlated. In most prospective investigations, elevated central and peripheral BPs were similarly associated with adverse outcomes. Outcome-driven thresholds of the central systolic BP estimated by the type I device were on average 10 mmHg lower than their brachial counterparts. Cross-classification based on the central and brachial BPs identified that nearly 10% of patients had discrepancy in their status of central and brachial hypertension. Irrespective of the brachial BP status, central hypertension was associated with increased cardiovascular risk, highlighting the importance of central BP assessment in the management of hypertensive patients. Newer antihypertensive agents, such as renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and calcium channel blockers, were more efficacious than older agents in central BP reduction. Clinical trials are warranted to demonstrate whether controlling central hypertension with an optimized antihypertensive drug treatment will be beneficial beyond the control of brachial hypertension.

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.

Sacubitril-valsartan for the treatment of hypertension in China: A cost-utility analysis based on meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Sacubitril-valsartan was recommended for heart failure (HF) and proven cost-effective in HF. Recently, sacubitril-valsartan has been recommended to treat hypertension by the Chinese expert consensus. The cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan for hypertension remains uninvestigated.

Methods

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to investigate the real efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan on blood pressure, compared with angiotensin receptor blockers or placebo. A lifetime Markov model was developed to compare the cost utility of sacubitril-valsartan vs. valsartan. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), representing the ratio of incremental costs to the incremental utility. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was three times of per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in China in 2021. Sacubitril-valsartan was considered cost-effective if the ICUR obtained was lower than the WTP threshold, otherwise, sacubitril-valsartanis was not cost-effective.

Results

A total of 10 RCTs of 5,781 patients were included in the meta-analysis. For comparison of sacubitril-valsartan 400 mg/day vs. valsartan 320 mg/day, a reduction in blood pressure (BP) of -5.97 (-6.38, -5.56) (p < 0.01) was observed. Cost-utility analysis showed that for a 60-year-old patient with hypertension, if sacubitril-valsartan was prescribed as the antihypertensive agent, he had a life expectancy of 11.91 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with costs of 65,066 CNY, and if valsartan was prescribed as the antihypertensive agent, the life expectancy would be 11.82 QALY with costs of 54,769 CNY; thus, an ICUR of 108,622 CNY/QALY was obtained, lower than the WTP threshold.

Conclusion

Compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan is more effective in reducing blood pressure and may result in more quality-adjusted life-year, although with higher costs. Sacubitril-valsartan is cost-effective for hypertension in the current China setting under the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 times of per capita GDP.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on life quality in chronic heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims

Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to have cardiovascular benefits in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis of its effects on life quality in patients with CHF, in comparison with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception through March 2022 for all relevant randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of sacubitril/valsartan and ACEI/ARB on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with CHF. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of bias and quality of evidence. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results

We included 10 clinical studies involving 10,426 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and 7,689 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Meta-analysis results showed that, in terms of the primary outcome, the sacubitril/valsartan group was superior than the ACEI/ARB group in improving HRQoL of HFrEF, and the difference was statistically significant (SMD 1.26; 95% CI: 0.14, 2.37; p = 0.03), while there was no significant difference between the two groups in HFpEF (SMD 0.37; 95% CI: −0.35, 1.09; p = 0.32). The effect of sacubitril/valsartan on the secondary outcome of the minimal important improvement rate of HRQoL in HFrEF was consistent with the primary outcome, while the effect in HFpEF was not clear. The descriptive analysis of individual studies indicated no significant difference in the improvement of 6-min walk distance between the two groups.

Conclusion

Sacubitril/valsartan is beneficial to improve HRQoL outcome in patients with HFrEF with high quality of evidence. Compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril/valsartan was more effective. While in patients with HFpEF, this improvement was similar between the two groups.

New and developing pharmacotherapies for hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Despite the significant contribution of hypertension to the global burden of disease, disease control remains poor worldwide. Considering this unmet clinical need, several new antihypertensive drugs with novel mechanisms of action are under development.

AREAS COVERED

The present review summarizes the recent advances in the development of emerging pharmacological agents for the management of hypertension. The latest technological innovations in the design of optimized formulations of available antihypertensive drugs and the potential role of the modification of intestinal microbiota to improve blood pressure (BP) control are also covered.

EXPERT OPINION

Significant efforts have been made to develop new antihypertensive agents with novel actions that target the main mechanisms involved in resistant hypertension. Sacubitril/valsartan may emerge as a potential first-line drug due to its superiority over renin angiotensin system inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors can reduce BP in difficult-to-control hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, firibastat and aprocitentan may expand the therapeutic options for resistant hypertension by novel mechanism of actions. Since gut dysbiosis not only leads to hypertension but also causes direct target organ damage, prebiotics and probiotics could represent a potential strategy to prevent or reduce the development of hypertension and to contribute to BP control.

Application of Angiotensin Receptor–Neprilysin Inhibitor in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients: Chinese Expert Consensus

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global public health problem, and cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death in patients with CKD. The incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular events during the early stages of CKD increases significantly with a decline in renal function. More than 50% of dialysis patients die from cardiovascular disease, including coronary heart disease, heart failure, arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death. Therefore, developing effective methods to control risk factors and improve prognosis is the primary focus during the diagnosis and treatment of CKD. For example, the SPRINT study demonstrated that CKD drugs are effective in reducing cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events by controlling blood pressure. Uncontrolled blood pressure not only increases the risk of these events but also accelerates the progression of CKD. A co-crystal complex of sacubitril, which is a neprilysin inhibitor, and valsartan, which is an angiotensin receptor blockade, has the potential to be widely used against CKD. Sacubitril inhibits neprilysin, which further reduces the degradation of natriuretic peptides and enhances the beneficial effects of the natriuretic peptide system. In contrast, valsartan alone can block the angiotensin II-1 (AT1) receptor and therefore inhibit the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system. These two components can act synergistically to relax blood vessels, prevent and reverse cardiovascular remodeling, and promote natriuresis. Recent studies have repeatedly confirmed that the first and so far the only angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan can reduce blood pressure more effectively than renin–angiotensin system inhibitors and improve the prognosis of heart failure in patients with CKD. Here, we propose clinical recommendations based on an expert consensus to guide ARNI-based therapeutics and reduce the occurrence of cardiovascular events in patients with CKD.

Left Ventricular Hypertrophy: Etiology-Based Therapeutic Options

Determining the etiologies of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) can be challenging due to the similarities of the different manifestations in clinical presentation and morphological features. Depending on the underlying cause, not only left ventricular mass but also left ventricular cavity size, or both, may increase. Patients with LVH remain asymptomatic for a few years, but disease progression will lead to the development of systolic or diastolic dysfunction and end-stage heart failure. As hypertrophied cardiac muscle disrupts normal conduction, LVH predisposes to arrhythmias. Distinguishing individuals with treatable causes of LVH is important for prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality. Athletic's heart with physiological LVH does not require treatment. Frequent causes of hypertrophy include etiologies due to pressure/volume overload, such as systemic hypertension, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, or infiltrative cardiac processes such as amyloidosis, Fabry disease, and sarcoidosis. Hypertension and aortic valve stenosis are the most common causes of LVH. Management of LVH involves lifestyle changes, medications, surgery, and implantable devices. In this review we systematically summarize treatments for the different patterns of cardiac hypertrophy and their impacts on outcomes while informing clinicians on advances in the treatment of LVH due to Fabry disease, cardiac amyloidosis, and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

Effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with hypertension and heart failure in the real-world setting: A retrospective study in China

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Hypertension (HP) is associated with heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has been approved for primary HP by China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) in June 2021. The present study aimed to provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of sac/val in Chinese patients complicated with HP and HF.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted on adult patients diagnosed with HP and HF and treated with sac/val between July 2020 and December 2020. The potential risk factors for the discontinuation events caused by sac/val-related adverse events (AEs) were explored. The data, including blood pressure (BP), cardiac indicators, corresponding values on echocardiographic parameters, unplanned visits, and AEs throughout 3-12 months, were collected.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 446 eligible patients were included in this study. The discontinuation events of sac/val were mainly attributed to its AEs (hypotension, hyperkalemia, and deterioration in kidney function). Univariate analysis revealed that history of chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, higher values of serum creatinine, serum uric acid, serum N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate were potential risk factors for discontinuation. Patients who maintained sac/val therapy throughout 3-12 months showed significantly improved values of clinical BP, cardiac indicators, and echocardiographic parameters compared to those at baseline (p < 0.0001).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Sac/val was effective on BP and improved cardiac function in patients complicated with HP and HF. The physicians should focus on patients with renal dysfunction to take timely precautions to improve tolerability for sac/val.

[Clinical case: early connection of valsartan/sacubitril in the treatment of hypertension]

Metabolic syndrome is a disease the World Health Organization has called a new pandemic of the 21st century. Arterial hypertension is one of the criteria for this diagnosis and a determinant of damage to major target organs. The present clinical case demonstrates an experience of treatment of arterial hypertension associated with metabolic syndrome with a valsartan/sacubitril molecular complex.

Sacubitril/valsartan attenuates atrial structural remodelling in atrial fibrillation patients

Aims

Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is now an established therapeutic option for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but the long‐term recurrence rate of AF is still high. Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is superior to valsartan in attenuating ventricular remodelling and improving clinical outcomes in heart failure patients, but whether this additional benefit exists in reversing atrial remodelling and reducing AF recurrence of RFCA‐treated AF patients remains uncovered.

Methods and results

Patients that had undergone RFCA were enrolled and randomly assigned 1:1 to valsartan (160 mg/day) or Sac/Val (200 mg/day) treatment group, in addition to other standard treatment of AF. Patients were followed up for 24 weeks. Echocardiography and ambulatory Holter monitoring for 24 h was performed at 24 weeks after RFCA. The primary end point was the change of atrial diameter from baseline to 24 weeks after RFCA. Second end points included the recurrence rate of AF, all‐cause hospitalization and all‐cause death. A total of 64 AF patients were enrolled, 32 of which received Sac/Val and 32 received valsartan treatment. There was no difference in the age (64.8 ± 9.8 vs. 63.7 ± 9.0, P = 0.634), gender (per cent of male: 59.4% vs. 50.0%, P = 0.616), heart rate (84.7 ± 4.1 b.p.m. vs. 80.9 ± 2.6 b.p.m., P = 0.428), systolic (127.5 ± 15.4 mmHg vs. 130.0 ± 17.8 mmHg, P = 0.549) or diastolic (81.7 ± 9.8 mmHg vs. 79.9 ± 12.6, P = 0.537) blood pressure upon admission between valsartan and Sac/Val treatment groups. The percentage of persistent AF was also comparable (43.8% vs. 53.1%, P = 0.617) in both treatment groups. Patients receiving Sac/Val treatment displayed significant decrease in the left atrial diameter (4.3 ± 0.5 cm to 3.8 ± 0.5 cm, P < 0.001), volume index (48.0 ± 6.4 mL/m² to 41.7 ± 7.0 mL/m², P < 0.001), and right atrial diameter (4.4 ± 0.8 cm to 3.9 ± 0.7 cm, P = 0.017) from baseline to 24 weeks after RFCA. This effect was not observed in valsartan treatment group. There was a numerical decrease in AF recurrence rate in the Sac/Val group compared with valsartan group (9.4% vs. 15.6%), although this difference did not reach a statistical significance (P = 0.708). No difference in all‐cause hospitalization rate (6.3% in each group) or all‐cause death rate (0% in each group) was observed.

Conclusions

Our data indicate that Sac/Val is superior to valsartan in attenuating atrial structural remodelling in catheter ablation‐treated AF patients.

Newer Drugs to Reduce High Blood Pressure and Mitigate Hypertensive Target Organ Damage

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to investigate the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects of emerging drugs developed to treat diabetic kidney disease and heart failure (HF). We summarize the potential pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for mitigating hypertensive target organ damage and evaluating the available clinical data on these newer drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Nonsteroidal dihydropyridine-based mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), dual angiotensin II receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (valsartan with sacubitril), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), and soluble guanylate cyclase stimulators are new classes of chemical agents that have distinct mechanisms of action and have been shown to be effective for the treatment of cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD), HF, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D). These drugs can be used either alone or in combination with other antihypertensive and CV drugs. Among these, SGLT2i and valsartan with sacubitril offer new avenues to reduce CVD mortality. SGLT2i have a mild-to-moderate effect on BP lowering with a favorable effect on CV and renal hemodynamics and have been shown to produce a significant reduction in the incidence of major adverse CVD events (as monotherapy or add-on therapy) compared with controls (placebo or non-SGLT2i treatment). Most of the participants in these studies had hypertension (HTN) at baseline and were receiving antihypertensive therapy, including renin-angiotensin system blockers. The combination of valsartan with sacubitril also lowers BP in the short term and has demonstrated a striking reduction in CVD mortality and morbidity in HF patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. If widely adopted, these novel therapeutic agents hold significant promise for reducing the public health burden posed by HTN and CVD. Based on the results of several clinical trials and considering the high prevalence of HTN and T2D, these new classes of agents have emerged as powerful therapeutic tools in managing and lowering the BP of patients with diabetic kidney disease and HF.

What the near Future Holds for Sacubitril/Valsartan: A Summary of Major Ongoing Studies

Early research on neprilysin inhibition showed that sacubitril/valsartan, a combination of the valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril, was superior to enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in the PARADIGM-HF study in 2014. Therefore, for patients with HFrEF, worldwide recommendations have been reformed to include sacubitril/valsartan. In addition, sacubitril/valsartan has been investigated in other cardiovascular disease states, such as patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and following myocardial infarction (MI) events. In February 2021, the FDA expanded the indication use of sacubitril/valsartan to include the HFpEF patient population based on the results of the PARAGON-HF trial. However, randomized clinical trials post-MI did not show promising results. Sacubitril/valsartan is currently being investigated in many other cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular conditions. This review aims to shed light and summarize the ongoing sacubitril/valsartan registered studies on the United States National Library of Medicine clinical trials registry.

The roles of global longitudinal strain imaging in contemporary clinical cardiology

Myocardial deformation imaging is now readily available during routine echocardiography and plays an important role in the advanced care of cardiovascular diseases. Its clinical value in detecting subtle myocardial dysfunction, by helping diagnose disease and allowing prediction of disease progression and earlier pharmacological intervention, has been demonstrated. Strain imaging has been the most studied and clinically used technique in the field of cardio-oncology. A relative percent reduction in left ventricular (LV) global longitudinal strain > 15% from baseline is considered a marker of early subclinical LV dysfunction and may have the potential to guide early initiation of cardioprotective therapy. The role of strain imaging is expanding to other fields, such as cardiac amyloidosis, other cardiomyopathies, valvular heart diseases, pulmonary hypertension, and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. It is also used for the evaluation of the right ventricle and atria. This review aims to provide a current understanding of the roles of strain imaging in the evaluation and management of patients with cardiovascular diseases in clinical practice.

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.

Antihypertensive Treatment and Central Arterial Hemodynamics: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Antihypertensive treatment may have different effects on central arterial hemodynamics. The extent of the difference in effects between various antihypertensive drugs remains undefined.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that explored the effects of antihypertensive agents on both central and peripheral systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pulse pressure (PP) or central augmentation index, with a special focus on the comparison between newer [renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS) inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers (CCBs)] and older antihypertensive agents (diuretics and β- and α-blockers).

Results: In total, 20 studies (n = 2,498) were included. Compared with diuretics (10 studies), β-blockers (16 studies), or an α-blocker (1 study), RAS inhibitors (21 studies), and CCBs (6 studies) more efficaciously (P < 0.001) reduced both central and peripheral SBP by a weighted mean difference of −5.63 (−6.50 to −4.76 mmHg) and −1.97 mmHg (−2.99 to −0.95 mmHg), respectively. Compared with older agents, the newer agents also more efficaciously (P < 0.001) reduced central PP (−3.27 mmHg; −4.95 to −1.59 mmHg), augmentation index (−6.11%; −7.94 to −4.29) and augmentation (−3.35 mmHg; −5.28 to –1.42 mmHg) but not peripheral PP (p ≥ 0.09). Accordingly, the newer agents reduced central-to-peripheral PP amplification significantly less than the older agents (0.11 mmHg; 0.05 to 0.17 mmHg; P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Newer agents, such as RAS inhibitors and CCBs, were significantly more efficacious than older agents in their effects on central hemodynamics.

Management of hypertension associated with cardiovascular failure

Hypertension (HT) treatment should focus on the prevention of new-onset heart failure (HF) or its exacerbation due to the increasing trend of HF incidence in Japan. According to the SPRINT trial, strict control of blood pressure (BP) of approximately 120 mmHg suppresses the progression of HF stages A and B to a more severe stage. However, in stages C and D, the target value for BP reduction differs depending on whether HF is HF reduced ejection fraction (EF) (HFrEF) or HF preserved EF (HFpEF). Additionally, the relationship between BP control and the prognosis of HF mostly showed the J-curve phenomenon in both HFrEF and HFpEF; however, patients with HFpEF need a lower target BP value than those with HFrEF. One reason is that vascular failure is associated with the pathophysiology of HF. Therefore, it is important to utilize an antihypertensive treatment strategy that considers vascular insufficiency. In addition, the presence or absence of compelling indications is important for the selection of antihypertensive (with cardioprotective effects for HF) medications. The uptitration of cardioprotective medications such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II type 1a receptor blockers and beta-blockers is recommended in patients with HFrEF; however, it is often not practically possible to increase the dosage. In these cases, the use of medications in combination with other medication classes is also useful. Moreover, it is also useful to properly use medications of the same class considering their onset of action and half-life in the blood. It is still unclear how cardioprotective medications are used in patients with HFrEF, especially on certain age groups. The optimal initiation and continuation of cardioprotective medications should be carefully determined.