Key result
This rationale and design paper describes a randomized trial evaluating the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on left ventricular remodeling in patients with asymptomatic LVSD post-MI.
Why the study?
In post-MI patients with residual LVSD, sacubitril/valsartan may attenuate adverse LV remodelling more than RAAS inhibition alone, but this effect required clinical investigation.
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve left ventricular remodelling compared to valsartan in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction following myocardial infarction?
RCT
Double-blind
randomized
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve left ventricular remodelling compared to valsartan in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction following myocardial infarction?
This paper describes the rationale and design of a trial evaluating whether sacubitril/valsartan improves left ventricular remodeling compared to valsartan in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction post-myocardial infarction.
AIMS: In patients at high risk of heart failure following myocardial infarction (MI) as a result of residual left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan may result in a greater attenuation of adverse left ventricular (LV) remodelling than renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibition alone, due to increased levels of substrates for neprilysin with vasodilatory, anti-hypertrophic, anti-fibrotic, and sympatholytic effects. METHODS: We designed a randomized, double-blinded, active-comparator trial to examine the effect of sacubitril/valsartan to the current standard of care in reducing adverse LV remodelling in patients with asymptomatic LVSD following MI. Eligible patients were ≥3 months following MI, had an LV ejection fraction ≤40% as measured by echocardiography, were New York Heart Association functional classification I, tolerant of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker at equivalent dose of ramipril 2.5 mg twice daily or greater, and taking a beta-blocker unless contraindicated or intolerant. Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (target dose 97/103 mg twice daily) or valsartan (target dose 160 mg twice daily). The primary endpoint will be change in LV end-systolic volume indexed for body surface area measured using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging over 52 weeks from randomization. Secondary endpoints include other magnetic resonance imaging-based metrics of LV remodelling, biomarkers associated with LV remodelling and neurohumoral activation, and change in patient well-being assessed using a patient global assessment questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will investigate the effect of neprilysin inhibition on LV remodelling and the neurohumoral actions of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with asymptomatic LVSD following MI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Docherty et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction following myocardial infarction. sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan (target dose 160 mg twice daily) was evaluated on change in LV end-systolic volume indexed for body surface area measured using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging over 52 weeks from randomization. This rationale and design paper describes a randomized trial evaluating the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan on left ventricular remodeling in patients with asymptomatic LVSD post-MI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: