Key result
Sacubitril/valsartan fails to reduce LVESVI vs valsartan in asymptomatic post-MI LV dysfunction.
Why the study?
Patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction are at high risk of heart failure, and adding neprilysin inhibition to renin angiotensin system inhibition may better attenuate adverse left ventricular remodeling.
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve left ventricular remodeling compared to valsartan in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction late after myocardial infarction?
RCT (n=93)
Double-blind
1:1 using randomized permuted blocks, stratified by baseline LVESVI and diuretic use
Yes
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve left ventricular remodeling compared to valsartan in patients with asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction late after myocardial infarction?
In patients with asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction late after myocardial infarction, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly improve reverse remodeling compared to valsartan.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Does not support sacubitril/valsartan over valsartan for remodeling in asymptomatic post-MI LV dysfunction; challenges ARNI extension to this population.
Background: Patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction after myocardial infarction are at a high risk of developing heart failure. The addition of neprilysin inhibition to renin angiotensin system inhibition may result in greater attenuation of adverse LV remodeling as a result of increased levels of substrates for neprilysin with vasodilatory, antihypertrophic, antifibrotic, and sympatholytic effects. Methods: We performed a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator trial comparing sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily with valsartan 160 mg twice daily in patients ≥3 months after myocardial infarction with a LV ejection fraction ≤40% who were taking a renin angiotensin system inhibitor (equivalent dose of ramipril ≥2.5 mg twice daily) and a β-blocker unless contraindicated or intolerant. Patients in New York Heart Association class ≥II or with signs and symptoms of heart failure were excluded. The primary outcome was change from baseline to 52 weeks in LV end-systolic volume index measured using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary outcomes included other magnetic resonance imaging measurements of LV remodeling, change in NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, and a patient global assessment of change questionnaire. Results: From July 2018 to June 2019, we randomized 93 patients with the following characteristics: mean age, 60.7±10.4 years; median time from myocardial infarction, 3.6 years (interquartile range, 1.2–7.2); mean LV ejection fraction, 36.8%±7.1%; and median NT-proBNP, 230 pg/mL (interquartile range, 124–404). Sacubitril/valsartan, compared with valsartan, did not significantly reduce LV end-systolic volume index; adjusted between-group difference, –1.9 mL/m 2 (95% CI, –4.8 to 1.0); P =0.19. There were no significant between-group differences in NT-proBNP, high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I, LV end-diastolic volume index, left atrial volume index, LV ejection fraction, LV mass index, or patient global assessment of change. Conclusions: In patients with asymptomatic LV systolic dysfunction late after myocardial infarction, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant reverse remodeling effect compared with valsartan. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03552575.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 2021 study conducted an RCT in Asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction late after myocardial infarction (n=93). Sacubitril/valsartan vs. Valsartan 160 mg twice daily (target dose) was evaluated on Change from baseline to 52 weeks in left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) measured using cardiac MRI (MD -1.9 mL/m2, 95% CI -4.8 to 1.0, p=0.19). Sacubitril/valsartan did not reduce LV end-systolic volume index at 52 weeks compared with valsartan in asymptomatic post-MI LV dysfunction.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: