Key result
Sacubitril/valsartan therapy for 12 months improved LVEF from 30% to 38% (p<0.0001), and smaller baseline LV volumes were associated with better reverse remodelling.
Why the study?
Sacubitril/valsartan can improve LVEF and induce reverse remodelling in real-world settings, but predictors of LV remodelling—especially Tissue Doppler Imaging parameters—warranted investigation.
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve echocardiographic parameters of LV remodelling in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced EF?
Cohort (n=54)
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve echocardiographic parameters of LV remodelling in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced EF?
Absolute Event Rate: 38% vs 30%
p-value: p=<0.0001
In a real-world cohort of HFrEF patients, sacubitril/valsartan therapy for 12 months was associated with significant reverse LV remodelling, with greater benefits observed in patients with smaller baseline LV volumes.
May support reverse remodelling in HFrEF but should not change practice; leaves open confirmation of volume predictors in trials.
Background Left ventricular (LV) remodelling is a major mechanism underlying disease progression in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Previous studies that LVEF improvement and reverse remodelling can be achieved after therapy with Sacubitril/Valsartan in real-world settings. Therefore, we sought to investigate possible predictors of LV remodelling, in particular echocardiographic parameters derived by Tissue Doppler Imaging.Methods Patients with chronic HF, LV dysfunction (EF < 35%), NYHA class II–III were followed up between September 2016 and January 2019. All patients underwent clinical and echocardiography follow up at baseline and after 12 months of therapy with sacubitril/valsartan.Results Fifty-four consecutive outpatients were enrolled in the study. At follow-up visit LVEF (38 ± 9 vs. 30 ± 5%, p < 0.0001), LVEDD (61 ± 8 vs. 62 ± 8 mm, p = 0.0085), LVESV (114 ± 57 vs. 130 ± 56 mm3, p = 0.0001), mitral regurgitation severity (1 ± 1 vs. 2 ± 1, p < 0.0001), and left atrial area (23 ± 6 vs. 24 ± 6 mm2, p = 0.0121) changed compared to the baseline value. Changes in LVEF (follow up vs baseline) correlated with baseline levels of heart rate (r = 0.24, p = 0.048), LVEDD (r= −0.33, p = 0.004), LVEDV (r= −0.39, p = 0.001), LVESV (r = 0.37, p = 0.002), and changes in LVESV (r=−0.34, p = 0.006). Correlations remained significant even after correction at multivariate analysis including age and gender.Conclusions Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients with systolic dysfunction is associated with an improvement in LVEF in a real world scenario. Smaller LV volumes are associated with better reverse LV remodelling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Correale et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (n=54). Sacubitril/Valsartan vs. Baseline was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p=<0.0001). Sacubitril/valsartan therapy for 12 months improved LVEF from 30% to 38% (p<0.0001), and smaller baseline LV volumes were associated with better reverse remodelling.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: