Author Correction: Impact of sacubitril/valsartan on implantable defibrillator eligibility in heart failure: a real-world experience

Correction to: European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 2021; 25 (18): 5690-5700-DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202109_26788-PMID: 34604961, published online on 30 September 2021. After publication, the authors applied to change the first two lines of Table II as the second column results were erroneously shifted in the first column. In this way, the results were quite difficult to understand. There are amendments to this paper. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. https://www.europeanreview.org/article/26788.

Impact of sacubitril/valsartan on implantable defibrillator eligibility in heart failure: a real-world experience

OBJECTIVE

Current guidelines recommend an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35%) despite ≥3 months of optimal medical therapy. Recent observations demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan induces beneficial reverse cardiac remodeling in eligible HFrEF patients. Given the pivotal role of LVEF in the selection of ICD candidates, we sought to assess the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on ICD eligibility and its predictors in HFrEF patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 48 chronic HFrEF patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan and previously implanted with an ICD in primary prevention. We assumed that ICD was no longer necessary if LVEF improved >35% (or >30% if asymptomatics) at follow-up.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 11 months, sacubitril/valsartan induced a significant drop in LV end-systolic volume (-16.7 ml/m2, p=0.023) and diameter (-6.8 mm, p=0.022), resulting in a significant increase in LVEF (+3.9%, p<0.001). As a consequence, 40% of previously implanted patients resulted no more eligible for ICD at follow-up. NYHA class improved in 50% of the population. A dose-dependent effect was noted, with higher doses associated to more reverse remodeling. Among patients deemed no more eligible for ICD, lower NYHA class (odds ratio (OR) 3.73 [95% CI 1.05; 13.24], p=0.041), better LVEF (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.01; 1.48], p=0.032) and the treatment with the intermediate or high dose of sacubitril/valsartan (OR 5.60 [1.15; 27.1], p=0.032) were the most important predictors of status change.

CONCLUSIONS

In symptomatic HFrEF patients, sacubitril/valsartan induced beneficial cardiac reverse remodeling and improved NYHA class. These effects resulted in a significant reduction of patients deemed eligible for ICD in primary prevention.

P1133Impact of mid-septal versus apical pacing on the right ventricle performance of patients with right bundle branch block undergoing pacemaker implantation

Background

pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy or transient impairment of the left ventricle (LV) function could be common collateral effects of the prolonged right ventricle (RV) pacing in patients with a pacemaker (PM) and pre-existing intra-ventricular conduction disturbances. However, the impact of RV pacing-site on RV performance of patients with right bundle branch block(RBBB) is still under-investigated.

Purpose

to study the effects of RV pacing in the mid-septal versus apical site on the morpho-functional performance of RV in patients undergoing permanent PM implantation.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with a pre-existent complete RBBB and undergoing dual-chamber PM implantation in our institution. We randomized the patients 1:1 to receive the RV catheter fixed either in the apex or in the mid-septal position. Patients with LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF &lt;50%), severe valvulopathies, left bundle branch block (LBBB), or preserved intraventricular conduction were excluded. Patients who received PM implantation were evaluated both at baseline and after two months with a 12-lead ECG, 2D, and 3D echocardiogram with analysis focused on RV performance according to the guidelines of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging.

Results

a total of 22 patients were randomized in the study, 11 (50%) received RV catheter positioned in the apex and 11 (50%) in the mid-septum, respectively. No baseline differences were recorded between the two groups in clinical characteristics, ECG and echocardiographic parameters. At 2 months follow up, there were no statistically significant difference in the % of RV pacing between the two groups. Nonetheless, RV mid-septal group showed significantly shorter duration of the stimulated QRS (146 ± 12 msec vs. 161 ± 20 msec, p = 0.05), significantly reductions in the RV dimensions (pre: 42 ± 8 mm vs. post: 37 ± 7 mm, p = 0.05) telediastolic area (pre: 12 ± 3 cm2/m2 vs post: 9 ± 4 cm2/ m2, p = 0.02) telediastolic volume (pre: 55 ± 16 ml/m2 vs post: 50 ± 17 ml/m2, p = 0.02) and a significant improvement of RV ejection fraction (pre: 54 ± 9% vs post: 57 ± 11%, p = 0.02) than patients in the RV-apical group. Moreover, patients in the RV-apical group showed significant lowering in the GLS of the LV (pre: -16 ± 3% vs post: -11.7 ± 3%, p &lt;0.001) and in the TAPSE (pre: 23 ± 5 mm vs post: 21 ± 2, p = 0.07) at follow up.

Conclusions

In this study, mid-septal pacing seems associated with a better morpho-functional RV performance than apical pacing in patients with pre-existent RBBB undergoing permanent PM implantation.

P1151Impact of ARNI (LCZ696) on patients selection for ICD implantation in SCD primary prevention: a real-world experience

Background

 ICD implantation is recommended for primary prevention in patients with symptomatic NYHA II-III heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (&lt; 35%) (HFrEF) and without left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement despite at least three months of guideline-directed therapy. The use of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition with LCZ696 has shown to ameliorate left ventricle function and to reduce the ventricular arrhythmias burden in patients with HFrEF.

Purpose

The profile of patients with HFrEF who may benefit from therapy with LCZ696 without further requiring an ICD in primary prevention is still unknown. We aimed to assess the prevalence of these patients and to find potential clinical predictors of responsiveness to this treatment.

Methods

 We enrolled consecutive patients that started LCZ696 treatment for medical therapy optimization in the heart failure clinic of our institution. All of them were previously implanted with an ICD before LCZ696 availability (from 2009 to 2015). A cardiologist evaluated their home medications, clinical, and echocardiographic characteristics both at baseline (before starting LCZ696) and during follow up. The patients were grouped also according to the etiology of HF (ischemic/non-ischemic) and by gender. Patients were excluded if candidates to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Responsiveness to LCZ696 treatment was defined as an increase of LVEF to values &gt; 35% at follow up (FU).

Results

A total of 49 patients (67.1 ± 9.8 years of age) were enrolled in this study and followed in the heart failure clinic of our institution (mean follow up 11.5 ± 4.9 months). Among them, 19 patients (38%) showed an increase in LVEF to values &gt; 35% at follow up and a significant improvement in LVEF was appreciated (baseline LVEF: 31.2 ± 4.5 vs. follow up LVEF: 35.4 ± 8.0; p 0.003). No significant differences were recorded at baseline in LVEF within HF etiology and gender groups. At follow up, we found a significant increase in post-therapy LVEF only in the non-ischemic etiology group (from 31.5 ± 4.4 to 37.1 ± 8.1, p = 0.001) and in the male group (from 31.4 ± 4.5 to 34.9 ± 7.9, p = 0.005) in comparison with the ischemic etiology and the female group, respectively. No significant statistical differences were appreciated between responders and non-responders neither in terms of home medications nor in the LCZ696 doses, both at baseline and follow up.

Conclusion

This study suggests a potential impact of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition therapy in the selection of patients with HFrEF candidates to ICD in primary prevention. In this real-world experience from our HF clinic, we found a significant LVEF improvement in approximately 40% of patients treated with LCZ696. These patients, in FU evaluation, would not have needed for an ICD implantation. This benefit appears related to the non-ischemic etiology of HF and the male gender.

Abstract Figure. LVEF VARIATIONS

Global and regional longitudinal strain assessed by two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography identifies early myocardial dysfunction and transmural extent of myocardial scar in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction and relatively preserved LV function

AIMS

Global and regional longitudinal strain (GLS-RLS) assessed by two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE) are considered reliable indexes of left-ventricular (LV) function and myocardial viability in chronic ischaemic patients when compared with delayed-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (DE-CMR). In the present study, we tested whether GLS and RLS could also identify early myocardial dysfunction and transmural extent of myocardial scar in patients with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and relatively preserved LV function.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twenty STEMI patients with LVEF ≥40%, treated with PPCI within 6 h from symptoms onset, underwent DE-CMR and 2D-echocardiography for 2D-STE analysis 6 ± 2 days after STEMI. Wall motion score index (WMSI) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) were calculated by both methods. Infarct size and transmural extent of necrosis were assessed by CMR. GLS and RLS were obtained by 2D-STE. Mean GLS of the study population was -14 ± 3.3, showing a significant correlation with both LVEF and WMSI, by CMR (r = -0.86, P = 0.001, and r = 0.80, P = 0.001, respectively) and time-to-PCI (r = 0.66, P = 0.038). A weaker correlation was found between GLS and LVEF and WMSI assessed by 2D-echo (r = -0.65, P = 0.001, and r = 0.53, P = 0.013, respectively). RLS was significantly lower in DE-segments when compared with normal myocardium (P < 0.0001). A cut-off value of RLS of -12.3% by receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves identified DE-segments (sensitivity 82%, specificity 78%), whereas a cut-off value of -11.5% identified transmural extent of DE (sensitivity 75%, specificity 78%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that RLS and GLS evaluation provides an accurate assessment of global myocardial function and of the presence of segments with transmural extent of necrosis, with several potential clinical implications.