Improvement in quality of life with sacubitril/ /valsartan in cardiac resynchronization non-responders: The RESINA (RESynchronization plus an Inhibitor of Neprilysin/Angiotensin) registry

Impact of Sacubitril/ Valsartan on quality of life and ejection fraction of heart failure patients with and without chronic kidney disease

Objective

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are at high risk of heart failure (HF) and both share similar risk factors, including diabetes and elevated blood Pressure (B.P). Aim of this study was to determine the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on the quality of life (QOL) and ejection fraction (EF) of patients with HF with and without CKD.

Methods

Single center (Doctors Hospital Lahore), observational study with longitudinal follow up, on 104 HF patients from July 2019 to July 2020. HF was diagnosed on both clinical and echo parameters. New York Heart Association Class II-IV, EF less than or equal to 40% HF with reduced EF and stage three CKD patients were included. Sacubitril/Valsartan was prescribed at a starting daily dose of 50mg and then up titrated to 400mg. Patients were followed up with clinical evaluation, QOL assessment, echocardiography and biochemical profile at one, four, eight and 12 months.

Results

Gender, age, and diabetes mellitus between CKD and non-CKD patients were noted to be statistically different, defined as p<0.05. CKD patients' QOL increased from 45.15 to 57.57 from baseline to 12 months (p-value<0.01). Non-CKD patients' QOL increased from 48.07 to 56.25. In CKD patients, EF increased from 27.87% to 29.29% from baseline to 12 months (p-value 0.03) whereas in non-CKD patients EF improved from 29.42% to 31.43%.

Conclusion

Sacubitril/ valsartan improves QOL in patients of HF with reduced EF both with and without CKD. Clinical improvement was independent of Left Ventricular EF as measured by QOL. Thus, QOL is a useful tool to assess the drug's beneficial effect.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Add-on Therapy With Sacubitril/Valsartan and Clinical Outcomes in CRT-D Nonresponder Patients

ABSTRACT

No data on the add-on sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) therapy among cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) nonresponder patients are currently available in literature. We conducted a prospective observational study including 190 CRT-D nonresponder patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction despite the optimal medical therapy from at least 1 year. The primary endpoint was the rate of additional responders (left ventricular end-systolic volume reduction >15%) at 12 months from the introduction of S/V therapy. At the end of the 12 months follow-up, 37 patients (19.5%) were deemed as "additional responders" to the combination use of CRT + S/V therapy. The only clinical predictor of additional response was a lower left ventricular ejection fraction [OR 0.881 (0.815-0.953), P = 0.002] at baseline. At 12 months follow-up, there were significant improvements in heart failure (HF) symptoms and functional status [New York Heart Association 2 (2-3) vs. 1 (1-2), P < 0.001; physical activity duration/day: 10 (8-12) vs. 13 (10-18) hours, P < 0.001]. Compared with the 12 months preceding S/V introduction, there were significant reductions in the rate of HF rehospitalization (35.5% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), in atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation burden [6.0 (5.0-8.0) % vs. 0 (0-2.0) %, P < 0.001] and in the proportions of patients experiencing ventricular arrhythmias (21.6% vs. 6.3%; P < 0.001). Our results indicate that S/V add-on therapy in CRT-D nonresponder patients is associated with 19.5% of additional responders, a reduction in HF symptoms and rehospitalizations, AF burden, and ventricular arrhythmias.