Why the study?
Response to sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF may differ across phenotypes, and the impact of right ventricular characteristics on this response remains controversial.
Does the response to sacubitril/valsartan differ according to right ventricular phenotypes in patients with HFrEF?
Does the response to sacubitril/valsartan differ according to right ventricular phenotypes in patients with HFrEF?
In patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan, those with a phenotype characterized by more severe right ventricular dysfunction have a worse prognosis, although both RV and LV functions improve with therapy.
Severe RV dysfunction phenotype identifies higher-risk HFrEF patients on sacubitril/valsartan; leaves open whether phenotypes modify treatment response.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome. In heart failure (HF) classifications, right ventricle (RV) function was for a long time unrecognized in favor of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The response to sacubitril/valsartan might differ according to phenotypes and the impact of right ventricular characteristics on this response remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: First, we applied clustering analysis in a HFrEF population undergoing sacubitril/valsartan treatment according to guidelines, to identify phenotypes and their associated clinical outcomes. Secondly, we evaluated RV-remodeling. MATERIAL AND METHODS: It is a prospective, observational, single-center study conducted on 108 symptomatic patients (mean age 66 ±12.8 years, 22.2% women). First, the clustering analysis was applied in a HFrEF population undergoing sacubitril/valsartan treatment, according to the guidelines, in order to identify phenotypes and clinical outcomes associated with them. Secondly, we evaluated RV-remodeling. RESULTS: Two distinct clusters were identified. Among the differences between phenotypes, RV (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) 16 ±4 mm compared to 19 ±4 mm, p < 0.001; RV free wall strain -19 ±5% compared to -21 ±4%, p = 0.046; RV fraction area change (FAC) 31 ±9% compared to 38 ±9%, p < 0.001), LV-filling pressure (E-wave deceleration time 138 (median: 41) ms compared to 180 (median: 94) ms, p < 0.001; E/e' 16.7 (median: 8.0) ms compared to 13.0 (median: 9.7) ms, p = 0.02) and creatinine level (106 ±34 μmol/L compared to 90 ±19 μmol/L, p = 0.002) were substantially different at the initiation of therapy. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) or death occurred in 38 out of 107 patients: 51.1% in cluster 1 compared to 24.2% in cluster 2 (p = 0.0074). A significant improvement in RV-functional parameters was observed under treatment. The TAPSE improved and correlated with the change in left ventricular (LV) function. Yet, it did not correlate with systolic pulmonary artery pressure (sPAP) and LV end-diastolic diameter. CONCLUSIONS: The HFrEF phenotype characterized by more severe RV dysfunction has a worse prognosis during sacubitril/valsartan therapy. Both RVand LV functions significantly improve when the patient is treated with sacubitril/valsartan.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
yanis et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: