Why the study?
Heart failure imposes a major global burden, prompting an Indian expert group to provide an evidence-based appraisal and consensus on the power and promise of ARNI in clinical practice.
Does sacubitril-valsartan improve outcomes in patients with heart failure?
Does sacubitril-valsartan improve outcomes in patients with heart failure?
This Indian expert consensus statement recommends early initiation of sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF and suggests potential benefits in mildly reduced ejection fraction (LVEF 40-50%).
;Heart failure (HF) is a huge global public health task due to morbidity, mortality, disturbed quality of life, and major economic burden. It is an area of active research and newer treatment strategies are evolving. Recently angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), a class of drugs (the first agent in this class, Sacubitril-Valsartan), reduces cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in chronic HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Positive therapeutic effects have led to a decrease in cardiovascular mortality and HF hospitalizations (HFH), with a favorable safety profile, and have been documented in several clinical studies with an unquestionable survival benefit with ARNI, Sacubitril-Valsartan. This consensus statement of the Indian group of experts in cardiology, nephrology, and diabetes provides a comprehensive review of the power and promise of ARNI in HF management and an evidence-based appraisal of the use of ARNI as an essential treatment strategy for HF patients in clinical practice. Consensus in this review favors an early utility of Sacubitril-Valsartan in patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), regardless of the previous therapy being given. A lower rate of hospitalizations for HF with Sacubitril-Valsartan in HF patients with preserved EF who are phenotypically heterogeneous suggests possible benefits of ARNI in patients having 40-50% of LVEF, frequent subtle systolic dysfunction, and higher hospitalization risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chopra et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: