Key result
Patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan had lower LVEF (32.7% vs 35.4%; P<0.0001) and higher rates of NYHA class III/IV symptoms (44.6% vs 32.1%) compared to conventional heart failure treatment.
Why the study?
To compare baseline characteristics of outpatients with HFrEF initiated on sacubitril/valsartan versus those continued on conventional HF treatment in a European setting.
What are the baseline characteristics of HFrEF patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan compared to those on conventional therapy in a real-world European setting?
Observational (n=8,787)
Yes
What are the baseline characteristics of HFrEF patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan compared to those on conventional therapy in a real-world European setting?
In real-world European practice, sacubitril/valsartan is preferentially prescribed to HFrEF patients with more severe symptoms and lower ejection fractions, though overall use of triple guideline-directed medical therapy remains suboptimal.
Real-world sacubitril/valsartan initiation targets sicker HFrEF patients; extends trial eligibility insights but leaves GDMT optimization open.
AIMS: To compare baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) initiated on sacubitril/valsartan compared with patients continued on conventional heart failure (HF)-treatment in a European out-patient setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between July 2016 and July 2019, ARIADNE enrolled 8787 outpatients aged ≥18 years with HFrEF from 17 European countries. Choice of therapy was solely at the investigators' discretion. In total, 4173 patients were on conventional HF-treatment (non-S/V group), while 4614 patients were on sacubitril/valsartan either at enrolment or started sacubitril/valsartan within 1 month of enrolment (S/V group). Of these, 2108 patients started sacubitril/valsartan treatment ±1 month around enrolment [restricted S/V (rS/V) group]. The average age of the patients was 68 years. Patients on S/V were more likely to have New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV symptoms (50.3%, 44.6%, 32.1% in rS/V, S/V, and non-S/V, respectively) and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; 32.3%, 32.7%, and 35.4% in rS/V, S/V, and non-S/V, respectively; P < 0.0001). The most frequently received HF treatments were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB; ∼84% in non-S/V), followed by β-blockers (∼80%) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs; 53%). The use of triple HF therapy (ACEI/ARB/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor with β-blockers and MRA) was higher in the S/V groups than non-S/V group (48.2%, 48.2%, and 40.2% in rS/V, S/V, and non-S/V, respectively). CONCLUSION: In this large multinational HFrEF registry, patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan tended to be younger with lower LVEF and higher NYHA class. Fewer than half of the patients received triple HF therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zeymer et al. (2021) conducted an observational in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=8,787). sacubitril/valsartan vs. conventional heart failure (HF)-treatment was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p=<0.0001). Patients initiated on sacubitril/valsartan had lower LVEF (32.7% vs 35.4%; P<0.0001) and higher rates of NYHA class III/IV symptoms (44.6% vs 32.1%) compared to conventional heart failure treatment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: