Sacubitril/valsartan reduces indications for arrhythmic primary prevention in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: insights from DISCOVER-ARNI, a multicenter Italian register

Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac remodeling compared with other renin-angiotensin system inhibitors: a difference-in-difference analysis of propensity-score matched samples

BACKGROUND

In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril-valsartan (S/V) may reverse left ventricular remodeling (rLVR). Whether this effect is superior to that induced by other renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors is not well known.

METHODS

HFrEF patients treated with S/V (n = 795) were compared, by propensity score matching, with a historical cohort of 831 HFrEF patients (non-S/V group) treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (RAS inhibitors). All patients were also treated with beta-blockers and shared the same protocol with repeat echocardiogram 8-12 months after starting therapy. The difference-in-difference (DiD) analysis was used to evaluate the impact of S/V on CR indices between the two groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, compared to non-S/V group (n = 354), S/V group (n = 354) showed a relative greater reduction in end-diastolic and end-systolic volume index (ESVI), and greater increase in ejection fraction (DiD estimator =  + 5.42 mL/m2, P = 0.0005; + 4.68 mL/m2, P = 0.0009, and + 1.76%, P = 0.002, respectively). Reverse LVR (reduction in ESVI ≥ 15% from baseline) was more prevalent in S/V than in non-S/V group (34% vs 26%, P = 0.017), while adverse LVR (aLVR, increase in ESVI at follow-up ≥ 15%) was more frequent in non-S/V than in S/V (16% vs 7%, P < 0.001). The beneficial effect of S/V on CR over other RAS inhibitors was appreciable across a wide range of patient's age and baseline end-diastolic volume index, but it tended to attenuate in more dilated left ventricles (P for interaction = NS for both).

CONCLUSION

In HFrEF patients treated with beta-blockers, sacubitril/valsartan is associated with a relative greater benefit in LV reverse remodeling indices than other RAS inhibitors.

Cardiomyopathies and Psychiatric Disorders: An Overview and General Clinical Recommendations

The association between cardiomyopathies (CMPs) and psychiatric disorders is a complex and bidirectional phenomenon that involves multiple mechanisms and factors. CMPs may raise the risk of psychiatric disorders due to the psychological stress, physical limitations, social isolation, or poor prognosis associated with the underlying disease. Psychiatric disorders, on the other hand, can increase the possibility of developing or worsening CMPs due to the behavioral, neuroendocrine, inflammatory, or pharmacological effects of mental illness or its treatment. Moreover, some common genetic or environmental factors may have a relevant influence on both conditions. With this comprehensive review, we sought to provide an overview of the current evidence on the strict and intriguing interconnection between CMPs and psychiatric disorders, focusing on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical implications, and management strategies.

Long-term prognosis and prognostic factors after primary prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy

BACKGROUND

Little is known regarding which patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) should be considered for prophylactic therapies, such as an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), in the primary percutaneous intervention era. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT) on major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients of ICM and non-ICM who underwent ICD implantation at our institute from October 2006 to August 2020. MACE were defined as composite outcome of cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalization, and appropriate ICD therapies.

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients were enrolled [male, 138 (83 %); age, 62.1 ± 11.7 years; left ventricular ejection fraction, 23.5 ± 6.1 %; left ventricular diastolic diameter, 67.4 ± 9.0 mm; atrial fibrillation, 47 (28 %); NSVT, 124 (74 %); use of class III antiarrhythmic drugs, 55 (33 %); ischemic cardiomyopathy, 56 (34 %); cardiac resynchronization therapy, 73 (44 %)]. The median follow-up duration was 61 months. MACE occurred with 71 patients (43 %). When comparing baseline characteristics of the patients, left ventricular ejection fraction (p = 0.02) and atrial fibrillation (p = 0.04) were significantly associated with MACE. The multivariable Cox analysis for the target variable MACE identified atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio 2.00; 95 % confidence index 1.18-3.37; p = 0.01) as an independent predictor for MACE.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior NSVT before ICD implantation was not an independent predictor of future MACE in patients with HFrEF with primary prophylactic ICD. In contrast, atrial fibrillation was associated with worse prognosis. To predict the prognosis of patients with primary prophylactic ICD, these factors should be assessed as comprehensive risk stratification factors for MACE.

Irreversible myocardial injury attenuates the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure patients

BACKGROUND

Despite the established benefits of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) across various etiologies, there are controversies regarding the effects of ARNI in patients with irreversible myocardial injury. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of irreversible myocardial injury on the benefits of ARNI treatment in patients with HFrEF, consisted of both ischemic and non-ischemic etiologies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective single-center study including 409 consecutive patients with HFrEF treated with ARNI between March 2017 and May 2020. Irreversible myocardial injury was defined as nonviable myocardium without contractile reserve, which suggests a limited potential for recovery of left ventricular function and geometry. At baseline, irreversible myocardial injury was observed in 129 (31.5%) patients. Composite outcome was cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure, which occurred in 56 (43.4%) and 61 (21.8%) patients with and without irreversible myocardial injury, respectively. On multivariable analysis, irreversible injury presence, but not ischemic etiology, was an independent predictor of composite outcome (hazard ratio 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.33-3.49). Mediation analysis revealed that the increased risk of the composite outcome due to irreversible myocardial injury was mediated by attenuated LV reverse remodeling (Z value = 2.02, P = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of irreversible myocardial injury was significantly associated with the response to ARNI treatment in patients with HFrEF, regardless of etiology.

Your Heart Function Has Normalized-What Next After TRED-HF?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the widespread implementation of contemporary disease-modifying heart failure therapy, the rates of normalization of ejection fraction are continuously increasing. The TRED-HF trial confirmed that heart failure remission rather than complete recovery is typical in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy who respond to therapy. The present review outlines key points related to the management and knowledge gaps of this growing patient group, focusing on patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is substantial heterogeneity among patients with normalized ejection fraction. The specific etiology is likely to affect the outcome, although a multiple-hit phenotype is frequent and may not be identified without comprehensive characterization. A monogenic or polygenic genetic susceptibility is common. Ongoing pathophysiological processes may be unraveled with advanced cardiac imaging, biomarkers, multi-omics, and machine learning technologies. There are limited studies that have investigated the withdrawal of specific heart failure therapies in these patients. Diuretics may be safely withdrawn if there is no evidence of congestion, while continued therapy with at least some disease-modifying therapy is likely to be required to reduce myocardial workload and sustain remission for the vast majority. Understanding the underlying disease mechanisms of patients with normalized ejection fraction is crucial in identifying markers of myocardial relapse and guiding individualized therapy in the future. Ongoing clinical trials should inform personalized approaches to therapy.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on exercise capacity: a prognostic improvement that starts during uptitration

PURPOSE

Sacubitril/valsartan is a mainstay of the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); however, its effects on exercise performance yielded conflicting results. Aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on exercise parameters and echocardiographic and biomarker changes at different drug doses.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled consecutive HFrEF outpatients eligible to start sacubitril/valsartan. Patients underwent clinical assessment, cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET), blood sampling, echocardiography, and completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-12). Sacubitril/valsartan was introduced at 24/26 mg b.i.d. dose and progressively uptitrated in a standard monthly-based fashion to 97/103 mg b.i.d. or maximum tolerated dose. Study procedures were repeated at each titration visit and 6 months after reaching the maximum tolerated dose.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients completed the study, 73 (75%) reached maximum sacubitril/valsartan dose. We observed a significant improvement in functional capacity across all study steps: oxygen intake increased, at peak exercise (from 15.6 ± 4.5 to 16.5 ± 4.9 mL/min/kg; p trend = 0.001), while minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production relationship reduced in patients with an abnormal value at baseline. Sacubitril/valsartan induced positive left ventricle reverse remodeling (EF from 31 ± 5 to 37 ± 8%; p trend < 0.001), while NT-proBNP reduced from 1179 [610-2757] to 780 [372-1344] pg/ml (p trend < 0.0001). NYHA functional class and the subjective perception of limitation in daily life at KCCQ-12 significantly improved. The Metabolic Exercise Cardiac Kidney Index (MECKI) score progressively improved from 4.35 [2.42-7.71] to 2.35% [1.24-4.96], p = 0.003.

CONCLUSIONS

A holistic and progressive HF improvement was observed with sacubitril/valsartan in parallel with quality of life. Likewise, a prognostic enhancement was observed.

Deformation Imaging by Strain in Chronic Heart Failure Over Sacubitril-Valsartan: A Multicenter Echocardiographic Registry

AIMS

Sacubitril/valsartan has changed the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), due to the positive effects on morbidity and mortality, partly mediated by left ventricular (LV) reverse remodelling (LVRR). The aim of this multicenter study was to identify echocardiographic predictors of LVRR after sacubitril/valsartan administration.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with HFrEF requiring therapy with sacubitril/valsartan from 13 Italian centres were included. Echocardiographic parameters including LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and global peak atrial longitudinal strain by speckle tracking echocardiography were measured to find the predictors of LVRR [= LV end-systolic volume reduction ≥10% and ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement ≥10% at follow-up] at 6 month follow-up as the primary endpoint. Changes in symptoms [New York Heart Association (NYHA) class] and neurohormonal activations [N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)] were also evaluated as secondary endpoints; 341 patients (excluding patients with poor acoustic windows and missing data) were analysed (mean age: 65 ± 10 years; 18% female, median LVEF 30% [inter-quartile range: 25-34]). At 6 month follow-up, 82 (24%) patients showed early complete response (LVRR and LVEF ≥ 35%), 55 (16%) early incomplete response (LVRR and LVEF < 35%), and 204 (60%) no response (no LVRR and LVEF < 35%). Non-ischaemic aetiology, a lower left atrial volume index, and a higher GLS were all independent predictors of LVRR at multivariable logistic analysis (all P < 0.01). A baseline GLS < -9.3% was significantly associated with early response (area under the curve 0.75, P < 0.0001). Left atrial strain was the best predictor of positive changes in NYHA class and NT-proBNP (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Speckle tracking echocardiography parameters at baseline could be useful to predict LVRR and clinical response to sacubitril-valsartan and could be used as a guide for treatment in patients with HFrEF.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: Real-World Experience from Italy (the REAL.IT Study)

Sacubitril/valsartan reduces heart failure (HF)-related hospitalizations and cardiovascular mortality in PARADIGM-HF and has become a foundational treatment for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, data of its routine real-world use are limited, and evidence from Italian settings is lacking. The REAL.IT study aimed to characterize the demographics, pharmacotherapy, clinical characteristics and outcomes of sacubitril/valsartan-treated Italian patients with HFrEF. Electronic medical records of patients initiating sacubitril/valsartan from October 2016 to June 2019 at nine specialized hospital outpatient HF centers across Italy were reviewed. Overall, 924 adults (mean age 64.5 years, 84.6% male) were included. At baseline, 38.7% had an ischemic HF etiology, 45.9% hypertension, 23.2% atrial fibrillation, 25.4% diabetes mellitus, 26.1% an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 31.9% coronary artery bypass grafting. There were no clear patterns of patient selection over time. During follow-up, NYHA class improved in 37.5% of patients after a mean of 5.3 ± 3.8 months; 36.1% and 16.7% of patients were in NYHA class III during characterization and after one year of follow-up, respectively. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved ≥5% in 56.3% of patients at one year; 39.7% had ≥30% reduction of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; 2.2% had hyperkalemia during characterization and 2.6% during follow-up; and 3.8% had hypotension during characterization and 12% during follow-up. A total of 50 (5.8%) of patients had device implantation (ICD/CRT) during follow-up. HF-related hospitalization was recorded in 19.6% of patients during follow-up; 3.8% of patients died, approximately 1.3% from cardiovascular causes. Our real-world data confirm the favorable effectiveness and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan observed in pivotal randomized controlled trials.

Association between sacubitril/valsartan initiation and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction: Insights from ARIADNE registry

AIMS

We tested the hypothesis that initiation versus non-initiation of sacubitril/valsartan is associated with a more favorable subsequent change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

A prospective, non-randomized, double-arm, open-label, cohort study had been conducted across 687 centers in 17 European countries enrolling HFrEF patients aged ≥18 years with symptoms of HF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] II-IV) and "reduced LVEF". For the current analysis, 2602 patients with LVEF measured at baseline and follow-up were chosen, of which 860 (33%, mean age 67 years, 26% women) were started on sacubitril/valsartan at baseline and 1742 (67%, 68 years, 23% women) were not. Patients started on sacubitril/valsartan had higher NYHA class and lower LVEF.

RESULTS

LVEF increased from mean 32.7% to 38.1% in the sacubitril/valsartan group versus from 35.9% to 38.7% in the non-sacubitril/valsartan group (mean difference in increase 2.6%, p < 0.001). LVEF increased from baseline in 64% versus 53% of patients and increased by ≥5% (absolute %) in 50% versus 35% of patients in the sacubitril/valsartan versus non-sacubitril/valsartan groups, respectively. In the overall cohort, initiation of sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with any increase in LVEF (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.49 [1.26-1.75]) and with increase by ≥5% (OR 1.65 [1.39-1.95]).

CONCLUSION

Initiating versus not initiating sacubitril/valsartan was independently associated with a greater subsequent increase in LVEF in this real-world setting. Reverse cardiac remodeling may be one mechanism of benefit of sacubitril/valsartan.

Heart Failure with Improved Ejection Fraction: Insight into the Variable Nature of Left Ventricular Systolic Function

The progress of contemporary cardiovascular therapy has led to improved survival in patients with myocardial disease. However, the development of heart failure (HF) represents a common clinical challenge, regardless of the underlying myocardial pathology, due to the severely impaired quality of life and increased mortality comparable with malignant neoplasms. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the main index of systolic function and a key predictor of mortality among HF patients, hence its improvement represents the main indicator of response to instituted therapy. The introduction of complex pharmacotherapy for HF, increased availability of cardiac-implantable electronic devices and advances in the management of secondary causes of HF, including arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy, have led to significant increase in the proportion of patients with prominent improvement or even normalization of LVEF, paving the way for the identification of a new subgroup of HF with an improved ejection fraction (HFimpEF). Accumulating data has indicated that these patients share far better long-term prognoses than patients with stable or worsening LVEF. Due to diverse HF aetiology, the prevalence of HFimpEF ranges from roughly 10 to 40%, while the search for reliable predictors and genetic associations corresponding with this clinical presentation is under way. As contemporary guidelines focus mainly on the management of HF patients with clearly defined LVEF, the present review aimed to characterize the definition, epidemiology, predictors, clinical significance and principles of therapy of patients with HFimpEF.

Multimodality Imaging of Sudden Cardiac Death and Acute Complications in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a potentially fatal event usually caused by a cardiac arrhythmia, which is often the result of coronary artery disease (CAD). Up to 80% of patients suffering from SCD have concomitant CAD. Arrhythmic complications may occur in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) before admission, during revascularization procedures, and in hospital intensive care monitoring. In addition, about 20% of patients who survive cardiac arrest develop a transmural myocardial infarction (MI). Prevention of ACS can be evaluated in selected patients using cardiac computed tomography angiography (CCTA), while diagnosis can be depicted using electrocardiography (ECG), and complications can be evaluated with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and echocardiography. CCTA can evaluate plaque, burden of disease, stenosis, and adverse plaque characteristics, in patients with chest pain. ECG and echocardiography are the first-line tests for ACS and are affordable and useful for diagnosis. CMR can evaluate function and the presence of complications after ACS, such as development of ventricular thrombus and presence of myocardial tissue characterization abnormalities that can be the substrate of ventricular arrhythmias.