Key result
Sacubitril/valsartan linked to ~45% more HFrEF patients improving from NYHA Class III to II vs conventional therapy.
Why the study?
The study aimed to assess the association of sacubitril/valsartan versus no sacubitril/valsartan treatment with clinical characteristics, functional capacity, and clinical outcomes in outpatients with HFrEF.
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve functional capacity and clinical outcomes in outpatients with HFrEF compared to conventional treatment?
Cohort (n=8,787)
Yes
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve functional capacity and clinical outcomes in outpatients with HFrEF compared to conventional treatment?
In a real-world European registry, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater improvement in NYHA functional class compared to conventional HFrEF treatment.
AIMS: ARIADNE aimed to assess the association between effects of sacubitril/valsartan and no sacubitril/valsartan treatment and clinical characteristics, functional capacity, and clinical outcomes (cause-specific mortality and hospitalizations) in outpatients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: ARIADNE was a prospective European registry of 9069 patients with HFrEF treated by office-based cardiologists or selected primary care physicians. Of the 8787 eligible for analysis, 4173 patients were on conventional HF treatment (non-S/V group), whereas 4614 patients were either on sacubitril/valsartan treatment at enrolment or started sacubitril/valsartan within 1 month of enrolment (S/V group). We also generated a restricted analysis set (rS/V) including only those 2108 patients who started sacubitril/valsartan treatment within the month prior to or after enrolment. RESULTS: At the baseline, average age of patients enrolled in the study was 68 years, and 23.9% (2099/8787) were female. At the baseline, the proportions of patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class III symptoms were 30.9 (1288/4173), 42.8 (1974/4614), and 48.2% (1015/2108), in non-S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively. After 12 months of treatment, the proportion of patients with NYHA Class III at baseline who improved to Class II was 32.0% (290/907) in the non-S/V group vs. 46.3% (648/1399) in S/V group and 48.7% (349/717) in rS/V group. The overall mortality rate was 5.0 per 100 patient-years. Rates of HF hospitalizations were high (20.9, 20.3, and 21.2 per 100 patient-years in the non-S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively). Emergency room visits without hospitalization occurred in 3.9, 3.2, and 3.9% of patients in the non-S/V, S/V, and rS/V groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This large HFrEF European registry provides a contemporary outcome profile of outpatients with HFrEF treated with or without sacubitril/valsartan. In a real-world setting, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with an improvement of symptoms in patients with HFrEF compared with the conventional HFrEF treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maggioni et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=8,787). Sacubitril/valsartan vs. Conventional HF treatment was evaluated on Improvement from NYHA Class III to Class II at 12 months. In outpatients with HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater improvement from NYHA Class III to Class II at 12 months compared to conventional therapy (46.3% vs 32.0%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: