Why the study?
The efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure was unknown.
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve clinical outcomes and reduce NT-proBNP in patients hemodynamically stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure compared to enalapril?
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve clinical outcomes and reduce NT-proBNP in patients hemodynamically stabilized during hospitalization for acute decompensated heart failure compared to enalapril?
In patients stabilized after acute decompensated heart failure, sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces NT-proBNP and serious clinical events compared to enalapril.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports switching eligible HFrEF outpatients to sacubitril/valsartan; extends RCT evidence for ARNI over ACEI/ARB.
enalapril heart failure hospitalization valsartan I n outpatients with chronic heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction known to tolerate an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, substitution of the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan reduces the rate of cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. 1 Accordingly, consensus guidelines recommend the use of sacubitril/valsartan to treat patients with symptomatic HF with reduced ejection fraction. 2 Until recently, however, the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan among patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) was unknown. We have reported the primary results of the randomized double-blind PIONEER-HF trial (Comparison of Sacubitril-Valsartan versus Enalapril on Effect on NT-proBNP in Patients Stabilized from an Acute Heart Failure Episode) demonstrating that, in comparison with enalapril, in patients hemodynamically stabilized during hospitalization for ADHF, sacubitril/ valsartan achieved a greater reduction in N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide concentration, was safe and well-tolerated, and was associated with a significant reduction in the serious composite clinical end point of death, rehospitalization for HF, implantation of a left ventricular assist device, or listing for cardiac transplantation (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79). 3 By design, 4 our previously reported analyses of clinical end points relied on investigator-reported data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Morrow et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: