Myocardial protective effect of sacubitril-valsartan on rats with acute myocardial infarction

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

Background

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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