Search

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan has been shown to be superior to enalapril in reducing the risks of death and hospitalization for heart failure (HF). However, knowledge of the impact on cardiac performance remains limited. We sought to evaluate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on clinical, biochemical and echocardiographic parameters in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods: Sacubitril/valsartan was administered to 205 HFrEF patients. Results: Among 230 patients (mean age 59 ± 10 years, 46% with ischemic heart disease) 205 (89%) completed the study. After a follow-up of 10.49 (2.93 ± 18.44) months, the percentage of patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III changed from 40% to 17% (p < 0.001). Median N–Type natriuretic peptide (Nt-proBNP) decreased from 1865 ± 2318 to 1514 ± 2205 pg/mL, (p = 0.01). Furosemide dose reduced from 131.3 ± 154.5 to 120 ± 142.5 (p = 0.047). Ejection fraction (from 27± 5.9% to 30 ± 7.7% (p < 0.001) and E/A ratio (from 1.67 ± 1.21 to 1.42 ± 1.12 (p = 0.002)) improved. Moderate to severe mitral regurgitation (from 30.1% to 17.4%; p = 0.002) and tricuspid velocity decreased from 2.8 ± 0.55 m/s to 2.64 ± 0.59 m/s (p < 0.014). Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan induce "hemodynamic recovery" and, consistently with reduction in Nt-proBNP concentrations, improve NYHA class despite diuretic dose reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was shown to be superior to enalapril in reducing the risk of death and hospitalization for HF. Our aim was to evaluate the cardiopulmonary effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF. Methods. We conducted an observational study. Ninety-nine ambulatory patients with HFrEF underwent serial cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET) after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in addition to recommended therapy. Results. At baseline, 37% of patients had New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III. After a median follow-up of 6.2 months (range 3–14.9 months) systolic blood pressure decreased from 117 ± 14 to 101 ± 12 mmHg (p < 0.0001), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 27 ± 6 to 29.7 ± 7% (p < 0.0001), peak oxygen consumption (VO2) improved from 14.6 ± 3.3 (% of predicted = 53.8 ± 14.1) to 17.2 ± 4.7 mL/kg/min (% of predicted = 64.7 ± 17.8) (p < 0.0001), minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production relationship (VE/VCO2 Slope) decreased from 34.1 ± 6.3 to 31.7 ± 6.1 (p = 0.006), VO2 at anaerobic threshold increased from 11.3 ± 2.6 to 12.6 ± 3.5 mL/kg/min (p = 0.007), oxygen pulse increased from 11.5 ± 3.0 to 13.4 ± 4.3 mL/kg/min (p < 0.0001), and ∆VO2/∆Work increased from 9.2 ± 1.5 to 10.1 ± 1.8 mL/min/watt (p = 0.0002). Conclusion. Sacubitril/valsartan improved exercise tolerance, LVEF, peak VO2, and ventilatory efficiency at 6.2 months follow-up. Further studies are necessary to better clarify underlying mechanisms of this functional improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heart rate recovery (HRR) is a marker of vagal tone, which is a powerful predictor of mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease. Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) is a treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), which impressively impacts cardiovascular outcome. This study aims at evaluating the effects of S/V on HRR and its correlation with cardiopulmonary indexes in HFrEF patients. Methods: Patients with HFrEF admitted to outpatients' services were screened out for study inclusion. S/V was administered according to guidelines. Up-titration was performed every 4 weeks when tolerated. All patients underwent laboratory measurements, Doppler-echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing (CPET) at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. Results: Study population consisted of 134 HFrEF patients (87% male, mean age 57.9 ± 9.6 years). At 12-month follow-up, significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (from 28% ± 5.8% to 31.8% ± 7.3%, p < 0.0001), peak exercise oxygen consumption (VO2peak) (from 15.3 ± 3.7 to 17.8 ± 4.2 mL/kg/min, p < 0.0001), the slope of increase in ventilation over carbon dioxide output (VE/VCO2 slope)(from 33.4 ± 6.2 to 30.3 ± 6.5, p < 0.0001), and HRR (from 11.4 ± 9.5 to 17.4 ± 15.1 bpm, p = 0.004) was observed. Changes in HRR were significantly correlated to changes in VE/VCO2slope (r = −0.330; p = 0.003). After adjusting for potential confounding factors, multivariate analysis showed that changes in HRR were significantly associated to changes in VE/VCO2slope (Beta (B) = −0.975, standard error (SE) = 0.364, standardized Beta coefficient (Bstd) = −0.304, p = 0.009). S/V showed significant reduction in exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) detection at CPET (28 EOV detected at baseline CPET vs. 9 EOV detected at 12-month follow-up, p < 0.001). HRR at baseline CPET was a significant predictor of EOV at 12-month follow-up (B = −2.065, SE = 0.354, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In HFrEF patients, S/V therapy improves autonomic function, functional capacity, and ventilation. Whether these findings might translate into beneficial effects on prognosis and outcome remains to be elucidated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]