The role of sacubitril/valsartan in the management of cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responders: a retrospective analysis

Add-on Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy Induces Left Ventricular Remodeling in Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy to a Similar Extent as in Heart Failure Patients Without Resynchronization

INTRODUCTION

Non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-NR) have poor prognosis. Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) treatment improved the outcome of patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized trials with no data on the specific cohort of CRT-NRs. The aim of this study was to compare the echocardiographic and biomarker changes in CRT-NR patients treated with versus without SV, and in patients with HFrEF on SV therapy.

METHODS

CRT-NR patients initiated on SV (group I), CRT-NR patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) (group II), and patients with HFrEF (without CRT) initiated on SV (group III) were identified in our heart failure (HF) registry. CRT-NR was defined as < 10% improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF) 6 months after the implantation. Echocardiographic parameters and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at baseline and at the end of follow-up were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 275 patients (group I, 70; group II, 70; and group III, 135) were included. After a follow-up of 7.54 ± 1.8 months (mean ± standard deviation [SD]), LV EF (%) increased in group I (25.2 ± 5.7 versus 29.4% ± 6.7; p < 0.001) and in group III (26.6 ± 6.4 versus 29.9 ± 6.7; p < 0.001). LV end-systolic diameters (mm) decreased in group I (56.6 ± 9.0 versus 54.3 ± 8.7; p = 0.004) and in group III (55.9 ± 9.9 versus 54.3 ± 11.2; p = 0.021). The levels of NT-proBNP (pg/mL) decreased in group I (2058.86 [1041.07-4502.51] versus 1121.55 [545-2541]; p < 0.001) and in group III (2223.35 [1233.03-4795.96] versus 1123.09 [500.38-2651.27]; p < 0.001). The extent of improvement was similar in groups I and III (p > 0.05). No significant changes were detected in group II.

CONCLUSION

SV therapy induced similar improvements in echocardiographic parameters and in NT-proBNP levels in CRT-NR patients and in patients with HFrEF without resynchronization.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Association of left ventricular remodeling with cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response stratified by left ventricular (LV) remodeling revealed differing mortality profiles for distinct patient cohorts. Measuring functional end points, as well as mortality, may better assess CRT efficacy and inform patient management. However, the association between LV remodeling and functional outcomes after CRT is not well understood.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term CRT outcomes by extent of LV remodeling.

METHODS

REsynchronization reVErses Remodeling in Systolic Left vEntricular dysfunction (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00271154) was a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial of CRT. Subjects were classified on the basis of LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) change from baseline to 6 months post-CRT: worsened (increase), stabilized (0%-≤15% reduction), responder (>15%-<30% reduction), and super-responder (≥30% reduction). Subjects were evaluated annually for 5 years.

RESULTS

The analyses included 353 subjects randomized to CRT-ON arm. All-cause mortality was higher in the worsened group than in the other 3 response groups (29.8% vs 8.0%; P < .0001), with no difference in survival among those groups (P = .87). A significant interaction between the LVESV group and time was observed for health status and quality of life (P = .02 for both). The interaction was not significant for 6-minute hall walk (P = .79); however, super-responders had increased walk distance compared with the other 3 response groups (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

Preventing further increase in LVESV with CRT was associated with reduced mortality, whereas functional measure improvement was associated with LV remodeling magnitude. These results support the consideration of functional and mortality end points to assess CRT efficacy and provide further evidence that the dichotomous "responder and nonresponder" classification should be modified.

Pacing interventions in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) represent a high-risk, and difficult to treat population of heart failure patients. Studies have shown that these patients have a lower quality of life and reduced life expectancy compared to those who respond to CRT. Whilst the first-line treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure is "conventional" biventricular epicardial CRT, a range of novel pacing interventions have emerged as potential alternatives. This has raised the question whether these new treatments may be useful as a second-line pacing intervention for treating non-responders, or indeed, whether some patients may benefit from these as a first-line option. In this review, we will examine the current evidence for four pacing interventions in the context of treatment of conventional CRT non-responders: CRT optimization; multisite left ventricular pacing; left ventricular endocardial pacing and conduction system pacing.

What Have We Learned in the Last 20 Years About CRT Non-Responders?

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become well established in the treatment of heart failure, the management of patients who do not respond after CRT remains a key challenge. This review will summarize what we have learned about non-responders over the last 20 years and discuss methods for optimizing response, including the introduction of novel therapies.

Case Studies of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy "Nonresponders"

Outcomes following cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) vary widely, with some patients experiencing normalization of left ventricular function to some who seem to be harmed by biventricular pacing. The care of CRT patients postoperatively is complex and requires input from physicians specializing in electrophysiology, heart failure, and often cardiac imaging. In this section, cases of apparent CRT suboptimal response from a dedicated CRT optimization clinic are presented.

Population-Level Impact of the Guidelines Update on Patient Selection and Outcomes After Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to analyze the impact of the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society (ACC/AHA/HRS) guidelines for cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) update on utilization and efficacy of CRT-D.

BACKGROUND

In September 2012, the ACC/AHA/HRS guidelines for CRT-D were modified to include left bundle branch block (LBBB) as a Class I indication.

METHODS

The IBM Watson MarketScan Database was queried between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2018, for CRT-D implants or upgrades. The primary outcome was heart failure (HF) hospitalization following left ventricular lead implant. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality and device-related lead revision.

RESULTS

A total of 27,238 patients were analyzed: 18,384 pre-update and 8,854 post-update. Mean age was 69 ± 11 years, 73% men, and 98% with history of HF hospitalization. The proportion of patients with LBBB increased from 29% to 55% (P < 0.001) after the update. Patients receiving CRT-D post-update demonstrated a greater prevalence of comorbidities, including atrial fibrillation (47% vs 40%; P < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (45% vs 39%; P < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (24% vs 15%; P < 0.001), and HF hospitalization in the year before CRT-D (40% vs 37%; P < 0.001). Despite greater baseline comorbidities, HF hospitalization significantly declined post-update (HR: 0.89; P < 0.001). Multivariate predictors of reduced HF hospitalization included angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor prescription (HR: 0.48; P < 0.001) and presence of LBBB (HR: 0.71; P < 0.001). All-cause mortality was not significantly different between the 2 groups, and fewer lead revisions were noted post-update (0.6% vs 1.7%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The revised 2012 guidelines led to an increased proportion of LBBB patients receiving CRT-D at the population-level. This change was associated with reduced HF hospitalization, despite broadening therapy to patients with more comorbid conditions.

Add-on Therapy With Sacubitril/Valsartan and Clinical Outcomes in CRT-D Nonresponder Patients

ABSTRACT

No data on the add-on sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) therapy among cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-D) nonresponder patients are currently available in literature. We conducted a prospective observational study including 190 CRT-D nonresponder patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction despite the optimal medical therapy from at least 1 year. The primary endpoint was the rate of additional responders (left ventricular end-systolic volume reduction >15%) at 12 months from the introduction of S/V therapy. At the end of the 12 months follow-up, 37 patients (19.5%) were deemed as "additional responders" to the combination use of CRT + S/V therapy. The only clinical predictor of additional response was a lower left ventricular ejection fraction [OR 0.881 (0.815-0.953), P = 0.002] at baseline. At 12 months follow-up, there were significant improvements in heart failure (HF) symptoms and functional status [New York Heart Association 2 (2-3) vs. 1 (1-2), P < 0.001; physical activity duration/day: 10 (8-12) vs. 13 (10-18) hours, P < 0.001]. Compared with the 12 months preceding S/V introduction, there were significant reductions in the rate of HF rehospitalization (35.5% vs. 19.5%, P < 0.001), in atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation burden [6.0 (5.0-8.0) % vs. 0 (0-2.0) %, P < 0.001] and in the proportions of patients experiencing ventricular arrhythmias (21.6% vs. 6.3%; P < 0.001). Our results indicate that S/V add-on therapy in CRT-D nonresponder patients is associated with 19.5% of additional responders, a reduction in HF symptoms and rehospitalizations, AF burden, and ventricular arrhythmias.

Treatment of advanced heart failure

Background: The development of medical and device treatment of heart failure (HF) has improved the survival and quality of life in HF patients. However, not all HF patients respond well to these up-to-date HF treatments. We have termed these non-responders as advanced HF patients. The definition, diagnosis, and treatment of advanced HF are discussed in this review article.Current Concepts: After current guideline-directed treatments, advanced HF patients can experience aggravation and decompensation, usually resulting in hospitalization for the symptoms and volume control. Recurrent decompensation or hospitalization can cause a vicious cycle between the heart and other vital organs, such as the kidney and liver. Current and up-to-date guidelines recommend treatments, including heart transplant, left ventricular assist device (LVAD), and hospice care, for advanced HF. Given the limitation of heart transplant donors, LVAD can be used as a bridge to transplant, in addition to destination therapy. Updated LVAD system can reduce pump-related thrombosis, stroke, and bleeding.Discussion and Conclusion: Current guidelines suggest early recognition of advanced HF and referral to advanced HF specialists. Despite advances in the treatments of advanced HF, unmet needs for further improving clinical outcomes and quality of life exist.

Ventricular Arrhythmias in Seniors with Heart Failure: Present Dilemmas and Therapeutic Considerations: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Heart Failure (HF) is a global public health problem, which affects over 23 million people worldwide. The prevalence of HF is higher among seniors in the USA and other developed countries. Ventricular Arrhythmias (VAs) account for 50% of deaths among patients with HF. We aim to elucidate the factors associated with VAs among seniors with HF, as well as therapies that may improve the outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library databases, Science Direct, and Google Scholar were searched using specific keywords. The reference lists of relevant articles were searched for additional studies related to HF and VAs among seniors as well as associated outcomes.

RESULTS

The prevalence of VAs increases with worsening HF. A 24-hour Holter electrocardiogram may be useful in risk stratifying patients for device therapy if they do not meet the criterion of low ventricular ejection fraction. Implantable Cardiac Defibrillators (ICDs) are superior to anti-arrhythmic drugs in reducing mortality in patients with HF. Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) together with device therapy may be required to reduce symptoms. In general, the proportion of seniors on GDMT is low. A combination of ICDs and cardiac resynchronization therapy may improve outcomes in selected patients.

CONCLUSION

Seniors with HF and VAs have high mortality even with the use of device therapy and GDMT. The holistic effect of device therapy on outcomes among seniors with HF is equivocal. More studies focused on seniors with advanced HF as well as therapeutic options are, therefore, required.

Heart failure treatment in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: Opportunity for improvement

BACKGROUND

Heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is the predominant indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. The care gap and opportunity to optimize guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to define uptake, eligibility, dose, and adherence to GDMT in patients with CRT/ICD and HFrEF.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched from 2000 to July 2021 for major randomized trials, registries, and cohort studies evaluating GDMT in this population. Thirty-eight studies focused on medical therapy in patients with CRT/ICD devices (CRT = 23, ICD = 11, and both = 4).

RESULTS

In the pivotal device trials, ACEI/ARB and beta-blocker use was high (mean 94%, range 41%-99%; and 83%, range 27%-97%, respectively), but mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists were modest (mean 45%, range 32%-61%), in keeping with guidelines of that era. Similar results were found in observational registries. CRT was associated with beta-blocker uptitration, while the effects on ACEI/ARB were less consistent. For beta blockers, 57%-68% of patients were uptitrated, increasing the mean percent of target dose achieved by 24% from baseline to follow-up. In one study, adherence increased, for ACEI/ARB from 37% to 55% and beta blockers 34% to 58%. Only 1 study assessed potential eligibility at implant for sacubitril-valsartan (72%) or ivabradine (28%), and no study examined sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Increased uptake, titration, and dose was associated with reduced mortality, hospitalization, and device therapies.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HFrEF and ICD/CRT are undertreated with respect to GDMT, and there is opportunity to optimize therapy to improve morbidity and mortality.

Clinical evidence of initiating a very low dose of sacubitril/valsartan: a prospective observational analysis

Sacubitril/valsartan is superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of cardiovascular death and preventing hospitalization in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients often do not receive sacubitril/valsartan because of concerns about hypotension. We examined the feasibility of initiating sacubitril/valsartan at a very low dose (VLD) in potentially intolerant patients with HFrEF and subsequent dose up-titration, treatment persistence and outcomes. We analyzed 206 patients with HFrEF grouped according to starting sacubitril/valsartan dose. The VLD group (n = 106) commenced 25 mg twice daily, and the standard-dose (SD) group (n = 100) started on ≥ 50 mg twice daily. Baseline systolic blood pressure was 103 ± 12 mmHg vs. 119 ± 14 mmHg in the SD group (P < 0.001). The maximal target dose achievement rate was higher in the SD group (27.0% vs 9.4%, p = 0.001) and the VLD group experienced more dose up-titrations and fewer down-titrations than the SD group. The VLD group had a decrease in N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) similar to the SD group and a similar increase in left ventricular ejection fraction. There were no significant differences in symptomatic hypotension, worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, cardiovascular mortality, and rehospitalization due to HF between the two groups during follow-up period. In patients considered by the treating physician likely to be intolerant of sacubitril/valsartan, initiation with 25 mg twice daily was generally possible and patients remained in therapy, with similar decreases in NT-proBNP and increases in left ventricular ejection fraction to those observed in patients receiving SD sacubitril/valsartan.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in the Management of Heart Failure Patients with Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

For heart failure patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), especially those who remain symptomatic after implantation, the best management strategy is still unclear. Although there are several concerns regarding the clinical utilization of sacubitril/valsartan, it has improved the prognosis of patients with heart failure compared with the use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in recent years. Recent real-world observational studies and post hoc analyses demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan might have effects in patients with CIEDs. Given its potential underlying mechanisms, sacubitril/valsartan could improve outcomes of mortality and sudden cardiac death incidence, as well as clinical and echocardiographic evaluations. The possible antiarrhythmic effect of sacubitril/valsartan is still debated. Moreover, given that hypotension is the critical limitation of uptitration, the rise in systolic blood pressure attributed to cardiac resynchronization therapy might support the use of sacubitril/valsartan, with improved tolerance. The clinical utility of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients with CIEDs requires further investigation to determine the actual effects, optimal target populations, and underlying mechanisms.

The role of sacubitril/valsartan in the management of cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responders: a retrospective analysis

Aims

Optimal medical therapy after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation is important in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. Although sacubitril/valsartan (SV) is a mainstay in the treatment of HFrEF, its efficacy in the management of CRT non‐responders has not been emphasized. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of SV in CRT non‐responders.

Methods and results

We analysed 175 HFrEF patients who received CRT implantation between January 2010 and January 2019. CRT responder was defined as a decrease in left ventricular (LV) end‐systolic volume > 15% on echocardiography 6 months after implantation. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent follow‐up for HF rehospitalization, heart transplantation (HT), implantation of a LV assistant device (LVAD), cardiac death, and all‐cause death. Among the study population, 164 patients were evaluated for CRT response; 54 (33%) were CRT non‐responders. Four patients (6%) who received SV before CRT implantation were excluded, leaving 50 patients for analysis. Twenty‐two non‐responders (44%) received SV. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between SV users and non‐users (n = 28). During follow‐up, SV users had significantly lower incidence of all‐cause death [1 (5%) vs. 10 (36%), P = 0.022] and tended to have lower HF rehospitalization [6 (27%) vs. 16 (57%), P = 0.068] and cardiac death (including HT and LVAD implant) [2 (9%) vs. 10 (36%), P = 0.064]. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed that SV use was associated with a lower risk of cardiac death (including HT and LVAD implant) (log‐rank P = 0.029).

Conclusions

SV treatment was related to a lower incidence of cardiac death including HT and LVAD implant in CRT non‐responders. The optimization of HF management, including SV, should be considered in CRT non‐responders.