Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan on resistant hypertension and myocardial work in hemodialysis patients

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Hemodialysis Patients with Chronic Heart Failure: A Retrospective Study at a Single Center

BACKGROUND Heart failure and end-stage renal disease often coexist, and management of heart failure can be challenging in patients during hemodialysis. Sacubitril-valsartan (SV) is the first drug to receive regulatory approval for use in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification II, III, or IV. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SV for use in chronic heart failure patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). MATERIAL AND METHODS From September 2021 to October 2022, 28 patients on MHD with chronic heart failure at the hemodialysis center of Shaanxi Second Provincial People's Hospital were regularly followed. During the 12-week follow-up period, all patients were administered SV at doses of 100-400 mg per day. Biochemical indicators, echocardiographic parameters, life quality scores, and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS We enrolled 28 patients. Compared with the baseline levels, NYHA class III in these patients treated with SV was significantly decreased from 60.71% to 32.14% (P<0.05), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly improved from 44.29±8.92% to 53.32±7.88% (P<0.001), the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score was significantly improved from 40.0±6.41 to 56.20±9.86 (P<0.001), and the Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was significantly improved from 39.99±6.14 to 52.59±11.0 (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated that SV improved NYHA classification and LVEF values of patients on MHD with chronic heart failure and also improved their quality of life.

Incidence of hyperkalemia in anuric hemodialysis patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan

INTRODUCTION

Sacubitril/valsartan is increasingly used in hemodialysis patients due to its cardioprotective benefits. However, its impact on serum potassium levels in anuric patients undergoing hemodialysis remains controversial.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective data from patients undergoing hemodialysis at two dialysis centers. A total of 71 out of 332 patients receiving hemodialysis treatment were enrolled. Mean serum potassium (mean value of 6-8 determinations), peak serum potassium (maximum K value observed during follow-up observations), and other biochemical parameters were recorded at baseline and during the follow-up period.

FINDINGS

After 6 months of follow-up, mean serum potassium increased from 4.84 ± 0.45 mmol/L at baseline to 5.07 ± 0.46 mmol/L at 3 months and 5.04 ± 0.46 mmol/L at 6 months (p < 0.001). Notably, no significant group differences were found in peak serum potassium concentrations between baseline and 6 months after sacubitril/valsartan therapy (5.69 ± 0.56 vs. 5.75 ± 0.41, p = 0.419). Prior to starting sacubitril/valsartan treatment, none of the patients had severe hyperkalemia; however, after 3 and 6 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, two (2.80%) and three (4.20%) patients experienced severe hyperkalemia, respectively; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Additionally, there was a significant reduction in blood pressure; however, serum sodium, bicarbonate, and Kt/V values did not change significantly during either period.

DISCUSSION

Sacubitril/valsartan therapy is associated with an increase in serum potassium levels in anuric hemodialysis patients. Nevertheless, the proportion of patients with severe hyperkalemia did not increase significantly. This suggests that the use of sacubitril/valsartan in anuric patients on hemodialysis is relatively safe.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in severe aortic stenosis does not necessarily reverse left ventricular myocardial damage: data of long-term follow-up

AIMS

Aortic stenosis (AS) is causing myocardial damage and replacement is mainly indicated based on symptoms. Non-invasive estimation of myocardial work (MW) provides a less afterload-dependent too for assessing myocardial function. We sought to look at the impact of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on the myocardium at long-term follow-up and according to current indications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted an observational, cross-sectional, single-centre study. Patients were selected based on the validated indication for a TAVI. Standardized echocardiographies were repeated. A total of 102 patients were included. The mean age was 85 years, 45% were female, 68% had high blood pressure, and 52% had a coronary disease. One-fifth was suffering from low-flow-low-gradient AS. A follow-up was performed at 22 ± 9.5 months after the TAVI. No TAVI dysfunction was observed. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction was stable (62 ± 8%), and global longitudinal strain had improved (-14.0 ± 3.7 vs. -16.0 ± 3.6%, P < 0.0001). No improvement of the MW parameters was noticed (LV global work index 2099 ± 692 vs. 2066 ± 706 mmHg%, P = 0.8, LV global constructive 2463 ± 736 vs. 2463 ± 676 mmHg%, P = 0.8). Global wasted work increased [214 (149; 357) vs. 247 (177; 394) mmHg%, P = 0.0008].

CONCLUSION

In a population of severe symptomatic AS patients who had undergone a TAVI, the non-invasive myocardial indices that assess the LV performance at long-term follow-up did not improve. These results are questioning the timing of the intervention and the need for more attention in the pharmacological management of these AS patients.

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.

Sacubitril/valsartan reversal of left ventricular remodeling is associated with improved hemodynamics in resistant hypertension

BACKGROUND

Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) has been shown to be an effective antihypertensive drug combination. However, its therapeutic effects on blood pressure (BP), hemodynamics, and left ventricular (LV) remodeling in resistant hypertension (RHTN) remain unclear.

METHODS

Eighty-six patients completed this self-control study, during which olmesartan was administered within the first 8 weeks (phase 1), followed by S/V within the second 8 weeks (phase 2), with nifedipine and hydrochlorothiazide taken as background medications. Office BP, echocardiography, and hemodynamics assessment using impedance cardiography were performed at baseline and at the eighth and sixteenth weeks.

RESULTS

The reduction in office BP was larger in phase 2 than in phase 1 (19.59/11.66 mmHg vs. 2.88/1.15 mmHg). Furthermore, the treatment in phase 2 provided greater reductions in systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI) and thoracic blood saturation ratio (TBR), with differences between the two phases of -226.59 (-1212.80 to 509.55) dyn·s/cm5/m2 and -0.02 (-0.04 to 0.02). Switching from olmesartan to S/V also significantly reduced E/E', LV mass index, LV end-diastolic volume index, and LV end-systolic volume index (all P < 0.05). Decreases in arterial stiffness, SVRI, and TBR were correlated with changes in indicators of LV remodeling (all P < 0.05). This correlation persisted even after adjusting for confounders including changes in BP.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from olmesartan to S/V effectively lowered BP and reversed ventricular remodeling in RHTN. In addition, hemodynamic improvement was also observed. Changes in hemodynamics played an important role in reversing LV remodeling of S/V, and were independent of its antihypertensive effect.

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

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

Effect of sacubitril valsartan on heart failure with mid-range or preserved ejection fraction in patients on maintenance hemodialysis: real-world experience in a single-center, prospective study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril valsartan (SV) on heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients on hemodialysis with HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF; HFpEF).

METHODS

This single-center, prospective study enrolled 155 stable hemodialysis patients with EF > 40% who were followed up for 12 months. Fifty-nine patients were treated with SV; the others were matched for EF (57.89 ± 9.35 vs. 58.00 ± 11.82, P = 0.9) at a ratio of 1:1 and included as controls. The target dosage of SV was 200 mg/day.

RESULTS

Twenty-three (23/155; 14.84%) had HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF), while 132 (85.16%) had HFpEF. After SV treatment, the peak early diastolic transmitral flow velocity/peak early diastolic mitral annular tissue velocity(E/e') improved from 17.19 ± 8.74 to 12.80 ± 5.52 (P = 0.006), the left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter decreased from 53.14 ± 7.67 mm to 51.56 ± 7.44 mm (P = 0.03), and the LV mass index decreased from 165.7 ± 44.6 g/m2 to 154.8 ± 24.0 g/m2 (P = 0.02). LVEF (P = 0.08) and LV global longitudinal strain (P = 0.7) did not change significantly. The composite outcome of first and recurrent HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death showed no difference between group. However, the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Workgroup (ADQI) HF class improved in 39 and 15 patients and worsened in 1 and 11 patients in the SV and control groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Age, diabetes mellitus, and pulmonary arterial pressure were independent risk factors for HF hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in patients with HFpEF.

CONCLUSIONS

SV improved LV hypertrophy, diastolic function, and the ADQI class for HF; however, it failed to reduce the composite endpoints of HF hospitalization and cardiovascular disease-related mortality over 12 months of follow-up in patients on maintenance hemodialysis with EF of > 40%.

Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Benefits and Safety of Sacubitril-Valsartan in End-Stage Kidney Disease

Introduction

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) frequently develop heart failure, contributing to high mortality. Limited data exist on cardiovascular benefits and safety of sacubitril-valsartan in this population. Our systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril-valsartan versus standard care in patients with ESKD who are on dialysis.

Methods

We conducted a search in Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies and assessed outcomes using random-effect model and generic inverse variance approach.

Results

Analysis of 12 studies involving 799 eligible patients with ESKD revealed improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with sacubitril-valsartan compared to a control group with pooled mean difference (MD) 6.58% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.86, 11.29). LVEF significantly improved in patients with LVEF <50% (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] and heart failure with moderately reduced ejection fraction [HFmrEF]) with MD 12.42% (95% CI: 9.39, 15.45). However, patients with LVEF >50% (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]) did not exhibit statistically significant effect, MD 2.6% (95% CI: 1.15, 6.35). Sacubitril-valsartan significantly enhanced LVEF in patients with HFrEF, with MD 13.8% (95% CI: 12.04, 15.82). Safety analysis indicated no differences in incidence of hyperkalemia (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% CI: 0.38, 1.36) or hypotension (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.03; 95% CI: 0.36, 2.98). No cases of angioedema were reported. However, safety analysis relies on evidence of limited robustness due to the observational nature of the studies.

Conclusion

Our systematic review suggests that sacubitril-valsartan benefits patients with ESKD with HFrEF and HFmrEF by improving LVEF without increasing the risk of hyperkalemia, hypotension, or angioedema compared to standard care. However, safety analysis based on observational studies inherently has limitations for establishing causal relationships.

Effects of intensive blood-pressure treatment on myocardial work in elderly hypertensive patients: A subcenter study of the STEP randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The benefits and safety of intensive blood pressure treatment in elderly hypertensive patients have been proved in the STEP trial. However, relevant mechanisms for intensive treatment are lacking.

HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to explore whether intensive blood pressure treatment is associated with left ventricular systolic function changes as evaluated by myocardial work (MW) parameters in elderly hypertensive patients compared to the standard.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to the intensive group (n = 66, median age 66 years, 42.4% male) with a systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal of 110 to <130 mmHg or the standard treatment group (n = 50, median age 63.5 years, 30% male) with an SBP goal of 130-<150 mmHg in this subcenter study of the STEP trial. There was no pre-randomization echocardiographic collected. Echocardiographic exam was produced at 1-year (phase 1) and 3-year (phase 2) post-randomization.

RESULTS

In phase 1, SBP was already significantly lower in the intensive treatment group than in the standard treatment group (126.5 vs. 132.1 mmHg, p < .05). During a median follow-up of 40 months, in phase 2, the intensive group still had a lower SBP than the standard treatment group (125.0 vs. 135.3 mmHg, p < .05). Both global work index (GWI) and global constructive work (GCW) decreased significantly in phase in the intensive treatment group but not in the standard group (p < .05). Global wasted work (GWW) increased and global work efficiency (GWE) declined in both groups from phase 1 to phase 2 while no significant difference between the treatment effects. Similarly, left ventricular ejection function (LVEF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) decreased in the two groups. The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the intensive treatment appeared to be an independent predictor of the ΔGWI (β = -110.92; 95% CI, -197.78 to -30.07, p = .008) and ΔGCW (β = -135.11; 95% CI, -220.33 to -49.88, p = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly hypertensive patients, lower SBP was associated with decreased GWI and GCW and intensive BP treatment did not improve global MW efficiency.

Fatigue in Patients Receiving Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Review

Fatigue surrounding hemodialysis treatments is a common and often debilitating symptom that impacts patients' quality of life. Intradialytic fatigue develops or worsens immediately before hemodialysis and persists through the dialysis treatment. Little is known about associated risk factors or pathophysiology, although it may relate to a classic conditioning response. Postdialysis fatigue (PDF) develops or worsens after hemodialysis and may persist for hours. There is no consensus on how to measure PDF. Estimates for the prevalence of PDF range from 20%-86%, likely due to variation in methods of ascertainment and participant characteristics. Several hypotheses seek to explain the pathophysiology of PDF, including inflammation, hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysregulation, and osmotic and fluid shifts, but none is currently supported by compelling or consistent data. PDF is associated with several clinical factors, including cardiovascular and hemodynamic effects of the dialysis procedure, laboratory abnormalities, depression, and physical inactivity. Clinical trials have reported hypothesis-generating data about the utility of cold dialysate, frequent dialysis, clearance of large middle molecules, treatment of depression, and exercise as potential treatments. Existing studies are often limited by sample size, lack of a control group, observational design, or short intervention duration. Robust studies are needed to establish the pathophysiology and management of this important symptom.

Comparative analysis of sacubitril/valsartan and losartan potassium in the treatment of hypertension: efficacy, adverse reactions, and observations

OBJECTIVE

To explore the antihypertensive effect of sacubitril/valsartan and losartan potassium in the treatment of hypertension and the adverse reactions in patients.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted using the medical records of 166 patients with hypertension who were admitted to Hangzhou Fuyang District Lushan sub-district community health service center from June 2022 to June 2023. The control group was treated with losartan potassium, and the observation group was treated with sacubitril/valsartan. Blood pressure, urinary microalbumin, blood urea nitrogen level, liver and kidney function, blood potassium, blood uric acid, cardiac function, inflammatory factors, occurrence of adverse reactions, and treatment efficacy were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After treatment, the observation group showed significantly lower blood pressure compared to the control group. Furthermore, the observation group exhibited reduced levels of urinary microalbumin and blood urea nitrogen, improved liver and kidney function, decreased inflammatory factor levels, fewer adverse reactions, and a higher treatment efficacy.

CONCLUSION

For patients with hypertension, sacubitril/valsartan has a better treatment efficacy than losartan potassium, because it can effectively reduce blood pressure, the levels of inflammatory factors, and the rate of adverse reactions in patients.

Resistant hypertension in dialysis

Hypertension is the most common finding in chronic kidney disease patients, with prevalence ranging from 60% to 90% depending on the stage and etiology of the disease. It is also a significant independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, progression to end-stage kidney disease and mortality. According to the current guidelines, resistant hypertension is defined in the general population as uncontrolled blood pressure on three or more antihypertensive drugs in adequate doses or when patients are on four or more antihypertensive drug categories irrespective of the blood pressure control, providing that antihypertensive treatment included diuretics. The currently established definitions of resistant hypertension are not directly applicable to the end-stage kidney disease setting. The diagnosis of true resistant hypertension requires confirmation of adherence to therapy and confirmation of uncontrolled blood pressure values by ambulatory blood pressure measurement or home blood pressure measurement. In addition, the term "apparent treatment-resistant hypertension," defined as an uncontrolled blood pressure on three or more antihypertensive medication classes, or use of four or more medications regardless of blood pressure level was introduced. In this comprehensive review we focused on the definitions of hypertension, and therapeutic targets in patients on renal replacement therapy, including the limitations and biases. We discussed the issue of pathophysiology and assessment of blood pressure in the dialyzed population, management of resistant hypertension as well as available data on prevalence of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension in end-stage kidney disease. To conclude, larger sample-size and even higher quality studies about drug adherence should be conducted in the population of patients with the end-stage kidney disease who are on dialysis. It also should be determined how and when blood pressure should be measured in the group of dialysis patients. Additionally, it should be stated what the target blood pressure values in this group of patients really are. The definition of resistant hypertension in this group should be revisited, and its relationship to both subclinical and clinical endpoints should be established.

The history and mystery of sacubitril/valsartan: From clinical trial to the real world

Heart failure is a serious threat to human health, with morbidity and mortality rates increasing despite the existence of multiple treatment options. Therefore, it is necessary to identify new therapeutic targets for this disease. Sacubitril/valsartan is a supramolecular sodium salt complex of the enkephalinase inhibitor prodrug sacubitril and the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan. Its combined action increases endogenous natriuretic peptides while inhibiting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and exerting cardioprotective effects. Clinical evidence suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is superior to conventional renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitor therapy for patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure who can tolerate angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers. The therapy reduces the risk of heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality and has a better safety and tolerability record. This review describes the potential pathophysiological mechanisms of cardiomyocyte injury amelioration by sacubitril/valsartan. We explore the protective effects of sacubitril/valsartan and outline the therapeutic value in patients with heart failure by summarizing the results of recent large clinical trials. Furthermore, a preliminary outlook shows that sacubitril/valsartan may be effective at treating other diseases, and provides some exploratory observations that lay the foundation for future studies on this drug.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan after switching from azilsartan in hemodialysis patients with hypertension

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in 23 hemodialysis patients with hypertension (mean age 70 years; male 69.6%) after switching from azilsartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker. Both at baseline and 3 months after the start of sacubitril/valsartan treatment, home blood pressure (BP), BP values during hemodialysis, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level were measured. The mean dosage of azilsartan was 30 ± 10 mg/day at baseline and that of sacubitril/valsartan after 3 months of treatment was 204 ± 64 mg/day. After 3 months, significant reductions in mean morning home BP (155 ± 17/80 ± 12 to 147 ± 16/76 ± 11 mmHg), mean nighttime home systolic BP (153 ± 19 to 144 ± 16 mmHg), and median (IQRs) NT-proBNP level [8124 (2620-13 394) to 6271 (1570-9591) pg/mL] were observed (all P < .05), whereas BP values during hemodialysis did not change significantly. In hemodialysis patients, except for hypotension, sacubitril/valsartan was generally well tolerated, effectively controlled out-of-office BP, and improved NT-proBNP.