Key result
Sacubitril/valsartan fails to improve myocardial oxygen consumption or energetic efficiency over valsartan in HFrEF.
Why the study?
The mechanism of action of sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan alone in patients with HFrEF needed evaluation.
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve myocardial oxygen consumption and energetic efficiency of cardiac work compared to valsartan alone in patients with HFrEF?
RCT (n=55)
Double-blind
parallel-group
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve myocardial oxygen consumption and energetic efficiency of cardiac work compared to valsartan alone in patients with HFrEF?
Absolute Event Rate: -5.4% vs 0.5%
p-value: p=0.088
In patients with HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan reduces blood pressure and left ventricular mechanical work compared to valsartan alone, without significantly changing the energetic efficiency of cardiac work.
Sacubitril/valsartan does not improve myocardial energetics over valsartan in HFrEF; challenges proposed mechanisms and focuses research on hemodynamic effects.
Aims We sought to evaluate the mechanism of angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan therapy and compare it with a valsartan-only control group in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results The study was a phase IV, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study in patients with New York Heart Association class II–III heart failure and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. During a 6-week run-in period, all patients received valsartan therapy, which was up-titrated to the highest tolerated dose level (80 mg bid or 160 mg bid) and then randomized to either valsartan or sacubitril/valsartan. Myocardial oxygen consumption, energetic efficiency of cardiac work, cardiac and systemic haemodynamics were quantified using echocardiography and 11C-acetate positron emission tomography before and after 6 weeks of therapy (on stable dose) in 55 patients (ARNI group: n = 27, mean age 63 ± 10 years, LVEF 29.2 ± 10.4%; and valsartan-only control group: n = 28, mean age 64 ± 8 years, LVEF 29.0 ± 7.3%; all p = NS). The energetic efficiency of cardiac work remained unchanged in both treatment arms. However, both diastolic (−4.5 mmHg; p = 0.026) and systolic blood pressure (−9.8 mmHg; p = 0.0007), myocardial perfusion (−0.054 ml/g/min; p = 0.045), and left ventricular mechanical work (−296; p = 0.038) decreased significantly in the ARNI group compared to the control group. Although myocardial oxygen consumption decreased in the ARNI group (−5.4%) compared with the run-in period and remained unchanged in the control group (+0.5%), the between-treatment group difference was not significant (p = 0.088). Conclusions We found no differences in the energetic efficiency of cardiac work between ARNI and valsartan-only groups in HFrEF patients. However, ARNI appears to have haemodynamic and cardiac mechanical effects over valsartan in heart failure patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nesterov et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=55). Sacubitril/valsartan vs. Valsartan was evaluated on Myocardial oxygen consumption (p=0.088). Sacubitril/valsartan therapy did not significantly improve myocardial oxygen consumption (-5.4% vs +0.5%; p=0.088) or energetic efficiency of cardiac work compared to valsartan alone in HFrEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: