Key result
In HFrEF patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, those ineligible for CRT (narrow QRS) had significantly greater improvements in LVEF (8.4% vs 4.5%) at 1 year compared to CRT-eligible patients (wide QRS).
Why the study?
Sacubitril/valsartan is used in HFrEF and CRT benefits patients with wide QRS, but the clinical impacts of sacubitril/valsartan on reverse cardiac remodelling across CRT-eligible and CRT-ineligible patients were unclear.
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve reverse cardiac remodeling differently in CRT-eligible (wide QRS) versus CRT-ineligible (narrow QRS) patients with HFrEF?
Observational (n=1,168)
Yes
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve reverse cardiac remodeling differently in CRT-eligible (wide QRS) versus CRT-ineligible (narrow QRS) patients with HFrEF?
Absolute Event Rate: 8.4% vs 4.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Sacubitril/valsartan induces significantly less reverse cardiac remodeling in HFrEF patients with wide QRS durations compared to those with narrow QRS durations, suggesting that early CRT implantation may still be necessary for this subgroup.
AIMS: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been used in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could benefit the HFrEF patients with wide QRS durations. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impacts of SAC/VAL on reverse cardiac remodelling in CRT-eligible and CRT-ineligible HFrEF patients with different QRS durations. METHODS AND RESULTS: The TAROT-HF study was a multicentre, observational study enrolling patients who initiated SAC/VAL from 10 hospitals since 2017. Patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were classified into two groups: (i) Group 1: CRT-eligible group, patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology plus QRS duration ≥130 ms or non-LBBB morphology plus QRS duration ≥150 ms; and (ii) Group 2: CRT-ineligible group. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders, and 1168 patients were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The improvements in LVEF and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) were more significant in Group 2 than in Group 1 after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (LVEF: 8.4% ± 11.3% vs. 4.5% ± 8.1%, P < 0.001; change percentages in LVESVi: -14.4% ± 25.9% vs. -9.6% ± 23.1%, P = 0.004). LVEF improving to ≥50% in Groups 1 and 2 constituted 5.2% and 20.2% after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that wide QRS durations were negatively associated with the reverse cardiac remodelling in these HFrEF patients with SAC/VAL treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite SAC/VAL treatment, wide QRS durations are associated with lower degrees of left ventricular improvement than narrow ones in the HFrEF patients. Optimal intervention timing for the CRT-eligible patients requires further investigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huang et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=1,168). Sacubitril/valsartan in CRT-ineligible patients (narrow QRS) vs. Sacubitril/valsartan in CRT-eligible patients (wide QRS) was evaluated on Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 1 year (p=<0.001). In HFrEF patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, those ineligible for CRT (narrow QRS) had significantly greater improvements in LVEF (8.4% vs 4.5%) at 1 year compared to CRT-eligible patients (wide QRS).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: