Key result
Sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF is linked to a ~7% increase in isovolumic contraction velocity, predicting reverse remodeling.
Why the study?
Isovolumic contraction velocity may inform load-independent systolic function, and combining it with LVEF may improve assessment of LV contractility in HFrEF.
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve tissue Doppler-derived mitral annular isovolumic contraction velocity in patients with HFrEF?
Cohort (n=651)
Does sacubitril/valsartan improve tissue Doppler-derived mitral annular isovolumic contraction velocity in patients with HFrEF?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.9% vs 4.6%
p-value: p=0.005
In patients with HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan therapy significantly improves isovolumic contraction velocity, which serves as an independent predictor of reverse cardiac remodeling.
ICV gains may mark contractility response to sacubitril/valsartan in HFrEF; extends remodeling data but leaves open prospective utility.
OBJECTIVES: To assess tissue Doppler-derived mitral annular isovolumic contraction velocity (ICV) after starting sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left ventricular [LV] EF < 40%). BACKGROUND: ICV may inform load-independent systolic function; combining ICV and LVEF may improve assessment of LV contractility. METHODS: Among 651 participants with HFrEF treated with sac/val, echocardiograms were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Pretreatment median ICVs and LVEFs were used for classification to predict LV reverse remodeling, health status using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, and biomarker concentrations. RESULTS: The mean age was 64.6 ± 12.4 years, and 28% were women, baseline LVEF: 28.9% ± 6.9%. Compared to baseline, median ICV increased post sac/val therapy (4.6 [3.5, 6.1] vs 4.9 [3.6, 6.4]; P = 0.005). ICV added value to separate and combined models of biomarkers and clinical and echocardiographic variables for prediction of post-therapy EF recovery. Classification using baseline ICV/EF yielded relatively equal numbers in 4 groups based on low/high ICV or LVEF. Most deleterious results for remodeling, health status and biomarkers were found in patients with low ICV/low EF, whereas patients with high ICV/high EF had the best profiles; other groups were intermediate. Significant shifts toward better ICV/EF profiles were noted post sac/val treatment compared to baseline, with doubling of high ICV/high EF (241 [60%] vs 123 [31%]) and 78% reduction of low ICV/low EF (28 [7%] vs 125 [32%]). CONCLUSIONS: In HFrEF, ICV adds to the profiling of systolic function and represents an independent predictor of reverse cardiac remodeling after treatment with sac/val. ICV changes may be used for assessment of treatment responses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Omar et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=651). Sacubitril/valsartan vs. Baseline (pre-treatment) was evaluated on Tissue Doppler-derived mitral annular isovolumic contraction velocity (ICV) (p=0.005). Sacubitril/valsartan therapy in patients with HFrEF significantly increased median isovolumic contraction velocity from 4.6 to 4.9 (P=0.005), which predicted reverse cardiac remodeling.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: