Why the study?
Sacubitril/valsartan preserves renal function better than RAS inhibitors in HFrEF, but evidence on its renoprotective impact and underlying mechanisms in cardiorenal syndrome needed comprehensive review.
Do angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors improve renal function in patients with cardiorenal syndrome?
Do angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors improve renal function in patients with cardiorenal syndrome?
This review highlights the potential of ARNIs, particularly sacubitril/valsartan, to provide renoprotective effects in patients with cardiorenal syndrome.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support ARNI consideration for renoprotection in cardiorenal syndrome; leaves open need for dedicated RCTs before practice change.
Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) represent a novel class of medications characterized by their dual action on major cardiorenal regulators, specifically the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) and the natriuretic peptide (NP) system. Sacubitril/valsartan, a pioneering ARNI, has demonstrated strong antihypertensive effect as well as superior efficacy in preserving renal function compared to RAS inhibitors in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction. Here, we gathered evidence on the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on the preservation of kidney function in patients with cardiorenal syndrome (CRS). In particular, we present a comprehensive summary of the latest advancements and findings from clinical trials, studies, and meta-analyses on the impact of ARNIs in maintaining or improving renal function. We also discussed the pre-clinical evidence supporting the use of sacubitril/valsartan for improving renal function, along with the underlying molecular mechanisms in animal models mimicking various clinical scenarios. Altogether, the analysis of published data from both pre-clinical and clinical studies provides substantial support for the usefulness of ARNIs in enhancing renal protection in subjects with CRS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rahman et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: