Search

Aims: Large-scale, real-world data on early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients newly diagnosed (de novo) with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are limited. We examined the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) on all-cause and cause-specific hospitalizations among patients with de novo HFrEF from the Optum® dataset in the United States., Methods: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients with de novo HFrEF (diagnosed ≤30 days) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% who were first prescribed with sacubitril/valsartan or ACEi/ARB from 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2020. The primary endpoint (all-cause hospitalization) and secondary endpoints were analysed in propensity score-matched cohorts., Results: A cohort of 3290 patients with de novo HFrEF who were prescribed with sacubitril/valsartan and a propensity-matched cohort of 6580 patients who were prescribed with ACEi/ARB were analysed. Overall, the mean (SD) age of patients was 63 (14) years, 34% were women, and baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups. Hypertension (67%), diabetes (33%) and chronic kidney disease (28%) were highly prevalent comorbidities. Patients in the sacubitril/valsartan cohort when compared with the ACEi/ARB cohort had lower annual rates of all-cause hospitalizations [incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.89, P < 0.001], cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations (IRR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.73-0.87, P < 0.001) and HF hospitalizations (IRR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.78-0.95, P = 0.002)., Conclusions: Among patients with de novo HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan (compared with that of ACEi/ARB) was associated with fewer all-cause, CV and HF hospitalizations. These findings are consistent with clinical trial evidence suggesting potential benefits of early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF, including those soon after diagnosis., (© 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Heart failure (HF) patients may lack improvement of left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (LVEF) despite optimal HF medication comprising an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI). Therefore, we aimed to identify key predictors for LV functional enhancement and prognostic reverse cardiac remodelling in HF patients on ARNI treatment., Methods: We retrospectively analysed 294 consecutive patients with HF with reduced (HFrEF) or mildly reduced (HFmrEF) ejection fraction in our 'EnTruth' patient registry. LVEF was determined by echocardiography at initiation of ARNI and at 12 months of follow-up. We assessed the predictive value of clinically relevant patient-, HF- and treatment-related parameters in regard to changes in LVEF and all-cause mortality using medoid clustering and the XGBoost machine learning algorithm., Results: Cluster analysis integrating clinically relevant patient characteristics unveiled four characteristic sub-phenotypes of patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF, respectively. Distinct clusters exhibit a strong (P < 0.05) therapeutic response to ARNI treatment and enhanced LV function. Key patient criteria, such as duration and aetiology of HF, renal function and de novo ARNI treatment, were significantly (P < 0.05) associated with change of LVEF and independently predicted cardiac remodelling. By training various machine learning models on relevant clinical parameters, stratification of LVEF improvement by XGBoost resulted in a high prediction accuracy. The stratification of patients with HFrEF [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.77] and HFmrEF (AUC = 0.70) led to an increased diagnostic accuracy of LVEF improvement in the validation cohort. Using machine learning, the likelihood of cardiac remodelling following ARNI treatment, as indicated by our newly established EnTruth score, was directly associated with absolute LVEF improvement in both HFrEF (r = 0.51, P < 0.0001) and HFmrEF (r = 0.42, P = 0.001). Ultimately, patients with HFrEF and a high EnTruth score have a lower risk of all-cause mortality (P < 0.05 in survival analysis)., Conclusions: Recognition of essential clinical factors by integrating machine learning and cluster analyses may help to identify HF patients benefiting from improvement of LVEF following ARNI treatment. Early identification of those patients with a high response to ARNI treatment may allow a more refined selection of patients benefiting from an early escalation of HF treatment or interventional therapy., (© 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is used for treatment of heart failure. The effect of Sac/Val on regional dysfunction following myocardial infarction (MI) remains uncertain. This study aimed at understanding the effects of Sac/Val on regional function after MI., Methods and Results: MI or sham surgery was performed in Sprague-Dawley rats. Animals were randomized to treatment with Sac/Val, valsartan (Val) or vehicle (Veh). Magnetic resonance imaging was used to acquire left ventricular volumes and strain. Left ventricular tissue was obtained for wesern blotting, PCR and Masson's trichrome staining. Isolated cardiac fibroblasts were cultured with Veh, atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), adrenomedullin (ADM) and sacubitrilat, and collagen expression assessed with droplet digital PCR., Results: Sac/Val reduced ventricular end-diastolic volume by 18% compared with Veh, and preserved circumferential systolic strain in the zone proximal to infarction compared with sham after 42 days of treatment (peak strain ± SEM: sham: -0.19 ± 0.01%; Sac/Val: -0.14 ± 0.02%; Val: -0.10 ± 0.02%; Veh: -0.10 ± 0.02%). Masson's trichrome staining demonstrated lower fibrotic deposition in the intermediate zone with Sac/Val treatment than Veh (sham: 2.29 ± 0.17%; Sac/Val: 2.31 ± 0.27%; Val: 3.22 ± 0.60%; Veh: 4.14 ± 0.48%). The amounts of the pro-apoptotic caspase 3 cleavage fragments p19/17 were 89% higher in Val than sham, with Sac/Val showing no significant increase compared with sham. Collagen expression in human fibroblast culture was lower in cells co-treated with sacubitrilat and ANP, an effect not observed with sacubitrilat/ADM co-treatment., Conclusions: Sac/Val preserves in vivo myocardial function in the region most proximal to MI in rats and reduces left ventricular dilatation. These effects may be related to a reduction in both fibrosis and pro-apoptotic signalling., (© 2024 The Author(s). ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Obesity condition causes morphological and functional alterations involving the cardiovascular system. These can represent the substrates for different cardiovascular diseases, such as atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, sudden cardiac death, and heart failure (HF) with both preserved ejection fraction (EF) and reduced EF. Different pathogenetic mechanisms may help to explain the association between obesity and HF including left ventricular remodelling and epicardial fat accumulation, endothelial dysfunction, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Multi-imaging modalities are required for appropriate recognition of subclinical systolic dysfunction typically associated with obesity, with echocardiography being the most cost-effective technique. Therapeutic approach in patients with obesity and HF is challenging, particularly regarding patients with preserved EF in which few strategies with high level of evidence are available. Weight loss is of extreme importance in patients with obesity and HF, being a primary therapeutic intervention. Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors have been recently introduced as a novel tool in the management of HF patients. The present review aims at analysing the most recent studies supporting pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management in patients with obesity and HF., (© 2024 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: This study sought to assess the effect of treatment of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) on improving cardiac function and reversing cardiac remodelling in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) complicated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: We enrolled 275 ACS patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after PCI. The patients were divided into the routine and S/V groups according to the treatment drugs. The symptoms, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentrations, echocardiographic parameters [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI)], major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and adverse reactions were recorded at baseline and 6 months after treatment when a clinical follow-up was performed. The S/V group was further divided into prespecified subgroups including unstable angina (UA) group, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) group, and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) group according to the type of ACS. We analysed the changes in LVEF, LVMI, LVEDVI, LVESVI, and NT-proBNP in both groups and evaluated the correlation between the changes in the above variables (ΔLVEF, ΔLVMI, ΔLVEDVI, ΔLVESVI, and ΔNT-proBNP). Cox regression model was used to assess the independent risk factors of MACE. Prespecified subgroup analyses were also conducted. Compared with baseline, LVEF increased significantly (P < 0.05), NT-proBNP, LVMI, and LVESVI decreased significantly in both groups after 6 months (P < 0.05), and LVEDVI decreased significantly in the S/V group (P = 0.001). In the S/V group, ΔLVEF (t = -2.745, P = 0.006), ΔNT-proBNP (P = 0.009), ΔLVEDVI (t = 4.203, P = 0.001), and ΔLVESVI (t = 3.907, P = 0.001) were significantly improved than those in the routine group. In the S/V group, ΔLVEF was negatively correlated with ΔNT-proBNP (r = -0.244, P = 0.004), ΔLVMI (r = -0.190, P = 0.028), ΔLVEDVI (r = -0.173, P = 0.045), and ΔLVESVI (r = -0.261, P = 0.002). In Cox regression model analysis, ΔLVEF {hazard ratio [HR] = 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.95], P = 0.003}, ΔLVEDVI [HR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.06), P = 0.013], and ΔLVESVI [HR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.08), P = 0.026] were independent risk factors for MACE. Subgroup analysis showed that ΔLVEF (t = 6.290, P = 0.001), ΔLVEDVI (t = 2.581, P = 0.011), and ΔNT-proBNP (P = 0.019) in the NSTEMI group were significantly improved than those in the UA group, ΔLVEDVI in the NSTEMI group was significantly better than that in the STEMI group (t = -3.365, P = 0.001), and ΔLVEF in the STEMI group was significantly better than that in the UA group (t = -3.928, P = 0.001). There was a significant difference in the survival probability without MACE among the three groups in the analysis of the Kaplan-Meier curve (P = 0.042). The incidence of MACE in the UA group was significantly higher than that in the NSTEMI group (32.4% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.004)., Conclusions: The cardiac function is improved and cardiac remodelling is reversed significantly after treatment of S/V in ACS patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction after PCI, and the improvement is more obvious than the routine group. There is a significant negative correlation between the change in LVEF and the changes in NT-proBNP, LVMI, LVEDVI, and LVESVI. The increase of LVEF and the decrease of LVEDVI and LVESVI are protective factors to improve the prognosis. Patients with myocardial infarction and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction might benefit more from the initiation of S/V as first-line heart failure treatment after PCI., (© 2024 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The current European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines provide clear indications for the treatment of acute and chronic heart failure (HF). Nevertheless, there is a constant need for real-world evidence regarding the effectiveness, adherence, and persistence of drug therapy. We investigated the use of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction in real-world clinical practice in Italy., Methods and Results: An observational, retrospective, non-interventional cohort study based on electronic medical records from nine specialized hospital HF centres in Italy was carried out on patients with prescription of sacubitril/valsartan. Overall, 948 patients had a prescription of sacubitril/valsartan, with 924 characterized over 6 months and followed up for 12 months. Pharmacoutilization data at 1 year of follow-up were available for 225 patients {mean age 69.7 years [standard deviation (SD) = 10.8], 81.8% male}. Of those, 398 (45.2%) reached the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan of 97/103 mg in a mean time of 6.9 (SD = 6.2) weeks. Blood pressure and hypotension in 61 patients (65%) and worsening of chronic kidney disease in 10 patients (10.6%) were the main reasons for not reaching the target dose. Approximatively 50% of patients had a change in sacubitril/valsartan dose during follow-up, and 158 (70.2%) were persistent with the treatment during the last 3 months of follow-up. A sensitivity analysis (persistence during the last 4 months of follow-up) showed persistence for 162 patients (72.0%). Adherence data, available for 387 patients, showed full adherence for 205 (53%). Discontinuation (102/717 patients, 14.2%) was mainly due to hypotension and occurred after a mean time of 34.3 (SD = 28.7) weeks. During follow-up, out of 606 patients with available data, 434 patients (71.6%) had an HF add-on drug or drugs concomitant with sacubitril/valsartan. HF-related hospitalization during follow-up was numerically higher in non-persistent (16/67 patients, 23.9%) vs. patients persistent to sacubitril/valsartan (30/158, 19%) (P = 0.405)., Conclusions: Real-world data on the use of sacubitril/valsartan in clinical practice in Italy show a rapid titration to the target dose, high therapeutic adherence enabling a good level of therapeutic management in line with ESC guidelines for patients with reduced ejection fraction., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In recent years, survival in patients with breast cancer has increased. Despite the improvement in outcomes of those patients, the risk of treatment-related cardiotoxicity remains high, and its presence has been associated with a higher risk of treatment termination and thus lower therapeutic efficacy. Prior trials demonstrated that a preventive initiation of heart failure drugs, including the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors, might reduce the risk of treatment-related cardiotoxicity. However, to date, no study investigated the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan, a novel antineurohormonal drug shown to be superior to the previous therapies, in the prevention of cardiotoxicity in patients with early-stage breast cancer, which is the aim of the trial., Methods and Results: MAINSTREAM is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, clinical trial. After the run-in period, a total of 480 patients with early breast cancer undergoing treatment with anthracyclines and/or anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 drugs will be randomized to the highest tolerated dose of sacubitril/valsartan, being preferably 97/103 mg twice daily or placebo in 1:1 ratio. The patients will be monitored, including routine transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and laboratory biomarker monitoring, for 24 months. The primary endpoint of the trial will be the occurrence of a decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction by ≥5% in TTE within 24 months. The key secondary endpoints will be the composite endpoint of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure, as well as other imaging, laboratory, and clinical outcomes, including the occurrence of the cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction resulting in the necessity to initiate treatment. The first patients are expected to be recruited in the coming months, and the estimated completion of the study and publication of the results are expected in December 2027, pending recruitment., Conclusions: The MAINSTREAM trial will determine the efficacy and safety of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan as a prevention of cardiotoxicity in patients with early breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT05465031)., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Serial assessment of natriuretic peptides is widely utilized in heart failure clinics. Uncertainty exists regarding the value of multiple natriuretic peptide measurements and how they might be best interpreted., Methods and Results: Six hundred thirty-two patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (<40%) and complete biomarker data were enrolled to receive sacubitril/valsartan. Patients underwent periodic study visits during 1-year follow-ups. Echocardiographic data and cardiac biomarkers, including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were collected during study visits. Patients were categorized into three groups based on tertiles of baseline NT-proBNP levels. The area under the curve (AUC) of NT-proBNP measurements across study visits was calculated. Compared with patients with higher AUC (and thus higher concentrations over a longer period of time), those with lower AUC were younger, had a lower prevalence of chronic kidney disease, prior coronary artery bypass graft, atrial fibrillation, and higher body-mass index. A significant interaction existed between baseline NT-proBNP and subsequent AUC for predicting LVEF change across visits (P-value < 0.001): among those with lower baseline NT-proBNP, similar improvements in left ventricular (LV) volumes LV ejection fraction, and LV mass index were observed across subsequent AUC (P-value > 0.1). However, among those with higher baseline NT-proBNP, those with lower subsequent AUC had a greater improvement in cardiac remodelling indices (P-value < 0.05)., Conclusions: Serial NT-proBNP monitoring (integrating the totality of measurements as an AUC) during treatment with sacubitril/valsartan informs unique information regarding the future changes in cardiac remodelling indices, especially among those with higher NT-proBNP levels at baseline., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: A novel tool for the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) systo-diastolic function through echo-derived haemodynamic forces (HDFs) has been recently proposed. The present study aimed to assess the predictive value of HDFs on (i) 6 month treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients and (ii) cardiovascular events., Methods and Results: Eighty-nine consecutive HFrEF patients [70% males, 65 ± 9 years, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 27 ± 7%] initiating sacubitril/valsartan underwent clinical, laboratory, ultrasound and cardiopulmonary exercise testing evaluations. Patients experiencing no adverse events and showing ≥50% reduction in plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and/or ≥10% LVEF increase over 6 months were considered responders. Patients were followed up for the composite endpoint of HF-related hospitalisation, atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular death. Forty-five (51%) patients were responders. Among baseline variables, only HDF-derived whole cardiac cycle LV strength (wLVS) was higher in responders (4.4 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.2; p = 0.01). wLVS was also the only independent predictor of sacubitril/valsartan response at multivariable logistic regression analysis [odds ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.67], with good accuracy at receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis [optimal cutpoint: ≥3.7%; area under the curve (AUC) = 0.736]. During a 33 month (23-41) median follow-up, a wLVS increase after 6 months (ΔwLVS) showed a high discrimination ability at time-dependent ROC analysis (optimal cut-off: ≥0.5%; AUC = 0.811), stratified prognosis (log-rank p < 0.0001) and remained an independent predictor for the composite endpoint (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.95; p < 0.01), after adjusting for clinical and instrumental variables., Conclusions: HDF analysis predicts sacubitril/valsartan response and might optimise decision-making in HFrEF patients., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The study aims to explore the real-world titration patterns of sacubitril/valsartan in a chronic heart failure (HF) follow-up management system and the effect on the recovery of ventricular remodelling and cardiac function in China., Methods and Results: This is a single-centre, observational study of 153 adult outpatients with HF and reduced ejection fraction who were managed in the chronic HF follow-up management system and prescribed with sacubitril/valsartan from August 2017 to August 2021 in China. All patients tried to titrated sacubitril/valsartan to the tolerant dose during follow-up. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached and maintained the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan. The main secondary outcomes were the changes in left atrium diameter, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 12 months. Among the patients, 69.3% were male, with a median age of 49 years. The baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 117.6 ± 18.3 mmHg before starting the treatment of sacubitril/valsartan. Benefiting from the management system, 117 (76.5%) patients achieved the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan, and the median time to reach the target dose was 3 (IQR 1-5) months. Advanced age and lower SBP may be predictors of failure to reach the target dose. Compared with baseline, standard treatment resulted in a pronounced improvement in left ventricular geometry and cardiac function. The patients showed a significant increase in LVEF [28 (IQR 21-34) % vs. 42 (IQR 37.0-54.3) %, P < 0.001], with a great reduction in left atrium diameter [45 (IQR 40.3-51.0) mm vs. 41 (IQR 37.0-45.3) mm, P < 0.001] and LVEDD [65 (IQR 60.0-70.3) mm vs. 55 (IQR 52-62) mm, P < 0.001] during 12 month follow-up. Of patients, 36.5% had a LVEF ≥50%, 54.1% had LVEF >40%, and 81.1% experienced an increase in LVEF of ≥10%. After 12 month follow-up, the proportion of patients with New York Heart Association classification I or II increased from 41.8% to 96.4%. Additionally, there was a significant improvement in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (P < 0.001). At Month 12, 50% of patients achieved the target dose of beta-blockers. No serious adverse events caused by sacubitril/valsartan were observed during the follow-up., Conclusions: Optimising HF follow-up management was essential and effective in a real-world clinical setting; the majority could reach the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan within the management system and achieve a remarkable improvement in cardiac function and ventricular remodelling., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

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., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Guidelines classify sacubitril/valsartan as a significant part of medical treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Data have shown that the HbA1c levels in patients with diabetes mellitus could be impacted by sacubitril/valsartan. A possible positive effect in diabetes patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan on outcome and echocardiography parameters is not well studied yet., Aims: The aim of the present study was to compare the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on life-threatening arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, different echocardiography parameters and congestion rate in patients suffering from HFrEF according to the diagnosis diabetes mellitus or no diabetes mellitus., Methods and Results: Consecutive 240 patients with HFrEF from 2016 to 2020 were treated with sacubitril/valsartan and separated to concomitant diabetes mellitus (n = 87, median age 68 years interquartile range (IQR) [32-87]) or no diabetes mellitus (n = 153, median age 66 year IQR [34-89]). Different comorbidities and outcome data were evaluated over a follow-up period of 24 months. Arterial hypertension (87% vs. 64%; P < 0.01) and coronary artery disease (74% vs. 60%; P = 0.03) were more often documented in patients with diabetes mellitus compared with patients without diabetes mellitus. Over the follow-up of 24 months several changes were noted in both subgroups: Median left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) increased significantly in non-diabetes (27% IQR [3-44] at baseline to 35% IQR [13-64]; P < 0.001), but not in diabetic patients (29% IQR [10-65] at baseline to 30% IQR [13-55]; P = 0.11). Accordingly, NT-proBNP and troponin-I levels decreased significantly in non-diabetes patients (NT-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] from median 1445 pg/mL IQR [12.6-74 676] to 491 pg/mL IQR [13-4571]; P < 0.001, troponin-I levels from 0.099 ng/mL IQR [0.009-138.69] to 0.023 ng/mL IQR [0.006-0.635]; P < 0.001), but not in diabetic patients (NT-proBNP from 1395 pg/mL IQR [100-29 924] to 885 pg/mL IQR [159-4331]; P = 0.06, troponin-I levels from 0.05 ng/mL IQR [0.013-103.0] to 0.020 ng/mL IQR [0.015-0.514]; P = 0.27). No significant change of laboratory parameters e. g. glomerular filtration rate, potassium level and creatinine levels were found in diabetes or non-diabetes patients. Comparing further echocardiography data, left atrial surface area, right atrial surface area, E/A ratio did not show a significant change either in the diabetes or non-diabetes group. However, the tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion was significantly increased in non-diabetes mellitus patients (from 17 mm IQR [3-31] to 18 mm [2.5-31]; P = 0.04), and not in diabetic s patients (17.5 mm IQR [8-30] to 18 mm IQR [14-31]; P = 0.70); the systolic pulmonary artery pressure remained unchanged in both groups. During follow-up, a similar rate of ventricular tachyarrhythmias was observed in both groups. The congestion rate decreased significantly in both groups, in diabetes patients (44.4% before sacubitril/valsartan and 13.5% after 24 months treatment; P = 0.0009) and in non-diabetic patients (28.4% before sacubitril/valsartan and 8.4% after 24 months treatment; P = 0.0004). The all-cause mortality rate was higher in patients with diabetes mellitus as compared with those without diabetes (25% vs. 8.1%; P < 0.01)., Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan reverses cardiac remodelling in non-diabetes patients. However, it reduces the congestion rate in diabetes and non-diabetes patients. The rates of ventricular tachyarrhythmias were similar in DM compared with non-DM over follow-up. The mortality rate remained to be over follow-up higher in diabetes patients compared with non-diabetes; however, it was lower compared with published data on diabetes and concomitant HFrEF not treated with sacubitril/valsartan., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Diabetes mellitus is associated with worse outcomes and lower attainment of disease-modifying therapies in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This post hoc analysis of TRANSITION compared the patterns of tolerability and uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF stabilized after hospital admission due to acute decompensated HF depending on the presence or absence of diabetes as a co-morbidity., Methods: TRANSITION, a randomized, open-label study compared sacubitril/valsartan initiation pre-discharge vs. post-discharge (up to14 days) in 991 patients hospitalized for acutely decompensated HFrEF. The impact of diabetes status on tolerability and safety was studied at 10-week and 26-week post-randomization., Results: Among the 991 patients analysed at baseline, 460 (46.4%) had diabetes and exhibited a higher risk profile. At 10 weeks, sacubitril/valsartan target dose (97/103 mg bid) was achieved in a similar proportion of patients in each subgroup, when initiated pre-discharge or post-discharge respectively [diabetes subgroup: 47% (n = 105/226) vs. 50% (n = 115/228); relative risk ratio (RRR), 0.923; P = 0.412; non-diabetes subgroup: 45% (n = 119/267) vs. 51% (n = 133/261); RRR, 0.878; P = 0.155]. The proportions of patients achieving and maintaining either 49/51 mg or 97/103 mg bid [diabetes subgroup: 61.1% (n = 138/226) vs. 67.5% (n = 154/228); RRR, 0.909; P = 0.175; non-diabetes subgroup: 62.9% [n = 168/267] vs 69.3% [n = 181/261]; RRR, 0.906; P = 0.118] or any dose for ≥2 weeks leading to Week 10 [diabetes subgroup: 85% (n = 192/226) vs. 88.2% (n = 201/228); RRR, 0.966; P = 0.356; non-diabetes subgroup: 86.9% (n = 232/267) vs. 90.8% (n = 237/261); RRR, 0.963; P = 0.215] were also similar in each subgroup, when initiated pre-discharge or post-discharge, respectively. At 10 weeks, hypotension and renal dysfunction rates were similar, although hyperkalaemia was higher among patients with diabetes (15.9% vs. 9.5%). The rate of permanent discontinuation due to adverse events was similar in the diabetes and non-diabetes subgroups at 10 weeks, respectively: pre-discharge (7.5% vs. 7.1%) or post-discharge (5.7% vs. 4.2%). Similar patterns of uptitration and tolerability were observed at 26 weeks. Cardiac biomarkers including NT-proBNP (P < 0.005) and hs-TnT (P < 0.005) reduced significantly from baseline levels in both subgroups at Weeks 4 and 10; however, the response was greater among patients without diabetes. Mortality (diabetes vs. non-diabetes subgroups: 3.3% vs 4.0%; P = 0.438) and HF rehospitalization (diabetes vs. non-diabetes subgroups: 36.3% vs. 33.0%; P = 0.295) did not differ between the groups at 26 weeks., Conclusions: Despite a higher risk profile among patients with diabetes, sacubitril/valsartan initiation either before or shortly after discharge in hospitalized patients with HFrEF resulted in comparable rates of dose up-titration and tolerability as in those without diabetes., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been used in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could benefit the HFrEF patients with wide QRS durations. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impacts of SAC/VAL on reverse cardiac remodelling in CRT-eligible and CRT-ineligible HFrEF patients with different QRS durations., Methods and Results: The TAROT-HF study was a multicentre, observational study enrolling patients who initiated SAC/VAL from 10 hospitals since 2017. Patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were classified into two groups: (i) Group 1: CRT-eligible group, patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology plus QRS duration ≥130 ms or non-LBBB morphology plus QRS duration ≥150 ms; and (ii) Group 2: CRT-ineligible group. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders, and 1168 patients were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The improvements in LVEF and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) were more significant in Group 2 than in Group 1 after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (LVEF: 8.4% ± 11.3% vs. 4.5% ± 8.1%, P < 0.001; change percentages in LVESVi: -14.4% ± 25.9% vs. -9.6% ± 23.1%, P = 0.004). LVEF improving to ≥50% in Groups 1 and 2 constituted 5.2% and 20.2% after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that wide QRS durations were negatively associated with the reverse cardiac remodelling in these HFrEF patients with SAC/VAL treatment., Conclusion: Despite SAC/VAL treatment, wide QRS durations are associated with lower degrees of left ventricular improvement than narrow ones in the HFrEF patients. Optimal intervention timing for the CRT-eligible patients requires further investigation., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

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., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Heart failure (HF) treatment has changed substantially over the last 30 years, leading to significant reductions in mortality and hospital admissions in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Currently, the optimization of guideline-directed chronic HF therapy remains the mainstay to further improve quality of life, mortality, and HF hospitalizations for patients with HFrEF. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) has an important role in the treatment of patients with HFrEF. The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) randomized controlled trial has established solid evidence for the treatment of HFrEF in various subgroups. Apart from HFrEF, several studies have been conducted using S/V in various indications: patients hospitalized with acute decompensated HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction, acute myocardial infarction with reduced ejection fraction, uncontrolled and resistant hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. Data from the German Institute for Drug Use Evaluation reveal that implementation of S/V has increased steadily over time and, by the end of 2021, an estimated 266 000 patients were treated with S/V in Germany. The estimated cumulative real-world patient exposure is >5.5 million patient-treatment years worldwide. The number of patients treated with S/V largely exceeds the number of patients treated in clinical trials, and the current indication for S/V is larger than the strict inclusion/exclusion criteria of the randomized trials. Especially elderly patients, women, and patients with more and more severe comorbidities are underrepresented in the clinical trials. We therefore aimed to summarize the importance of S/V in HF in terms of efficacy and safety in clinical trials and daily clinical practice., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Patients with persistent or de novo left ventricular (LV) dilation and/or reduced ejection fraction (EF) after correction for primary aortic (AR) or mitral (MR) regurgitation (i.e. residual LV remodelling) have not been well studied with regard to guideline-directed medical therapy after successful aetiology-reversing surgery. We aim to (i) compare the effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan in promoting LV reverse remodelling and (ii) explore the safety of medication withdrawal after LV recovery., Methods and Results: The ReReRe study is a multicentre, randomized, open-label, parallel trial that consists of two consecutive parts. A total of 371 patients with an LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) > 60 mm or LVEF < 50%, assessed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) 7-14 days after valve surgery for significant AR or primary MR will be enrolled. The 1 st randomization into the sacubitril/valsartan or valsartan groups and structured follow-up (1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after randomization) will be conducted to observe the primary objective as the rate of complete recovery of LV remodelling (i.e. LVEDD < 55 mm and LVEF ≥ 60% by TTE at two consecutive visits). Those who have complete recovery of LV remodelling will be enrolled in Study Part 2; consequently, they will receive the 2 nd randomization into the medication withdrawal or maintenance group and 6-monthly visits for the observation of the primary objective as the rate of LV remodelling relapse (LVEDD > 60 mm or LVEF < 50%). The secondary objectives include the rate of composite clinical outcomes and the degree of change in 6-min walk distance and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores., Conclusions: The ReReRe study will provide new evidence for the treatment of patients with residual LV remodelling after curable unloaded surgery, as well as the duration of treatment. The study results will fill the gap in identifying an appropriate medical therapy regimen for this group of patients and perhaps for those with reversible aetiologies of heart failure., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: We evaluated the clinical outcomes and trajectory of cardiac reverse remodelling according to the timing of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) use in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: Patients with de novo HFrEF who used Sac/Val between June 2017 and October 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients were grouped into the earlier use group (initiation of Sac/Val < 3 months after the first HFrEF diagnosis) and the later use group (initiation of Sac/Val ≥ 3 months after the first HFrEF diagnosis). Primary outcome was a composite of HF hospitalization and cardiac death. Secondary outcomes were HF hospitalization, cardiac death, all-cause death, significant ventricular arrhythmia (ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation), and echocardiographic evidence of cardiac reverse remodelling including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) change during follow-up. Among 115 enrolled patients, 67 were classified in the earlier use group, and 48 were classified in the later use group. Mean period of HFrEF diagnosis to Sac/Val use was 52.1 ± 14.3 days in the earlier use group, and 201.8 ± 127.3 days in the later use group. During the median follow-up of 721 days, primary outcome occurred in 21 patients (18.3%). The earlier use group experienced significantly fewer primary outcome than the later use group (10.4% vs. 29.2%, P = 0.010). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed better event-free survival in the earlier use group than in the later use group (log rank = 0.017). There were no significant differences in cardiac death, all-cause death, and ventricular arrhythmia between two groups (1.5% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.811; 1.5% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.375; 3.0% vs. 0%, P = 0.227, respectively). Despite a significantly lower baseline LVEF in the earlier use group (21.3 ± 6.4% vs. 24.8 ± 7.9%, P = 0.012), an early prominent increase of LVEF was noted before 6 months (35.2 ± 11.9% vs. 27.8 ± 8.8%, P = 0.007). A delayed improvement of LVEF in the later use group resulted in similar LVEF at last follow-up in both groups (40.7 ± 13.4% vs. 39.4 ± 10.9%, P = 0.686). Although the trajectory of left ventricular remodelling showed similar pattern in two groups, left atrial (LA) reverse remodelling was less prominent in the later use group during the follow-up period (final LA volume index: 43.6 ± 14.3 mL/m 2 vs. 55.2 ± 17.1 mL/m 2 , P = 0.011)., Conclusions: Earlier use of Sac/Val was related with better clinical outcome and earlier left ventricular reverse remodelling. Remodelling of LA was less prominent in the later use group implying delayed response in diastolic function., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is now an established therapeutic option for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but the long-term recurrence rate of AF is still high. Sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is superior to valsartan in attenuating ventricular remodelling and improving clinical outcomes in heart failure patients, but whether this additional benefit exists in reversing atrial remodelling and reducing AF recurrence of RFCA-treated AF patients remains uncovered., Methods and Results: Patients that had undergone RFCA were enrolled and randomly assigned 1:1 to valsartan (160 mg/day) or Sac/Val (200 mg/day) treatment group, in addition to other standard treatment of AF. Patients were followed up for 24 weeks. Echocardiography and ambulatory Holter monitoring for 24 h was performed at 24 weeks after RFCA. The primary end point was the change of atrial diameter from baseline to 24 weeks after RFCA. Second end points included the recurrence rate of AF, all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death. A total of 64 AF patients were enrolled, 32 of which received Sac/Val and 32 received valsartan treatment. There was no difference in the age (64.8 ± 9.8 vs. 63.7 ± 9.0, P = 0.634), gender (per cent of male: 59.4% vs. 50.0%, P = 0.616), heart rate (84.7 ± 4.1 b.p.m. vs. 80.9 ± 2.6 b.p.m., P = 0.428), systolic (127.5 ± 15.4 mmHg vs. 130.0 ± 17.8 mmHg, P = 0.549) or diastolic (81.7 ± 9.8 mmHg vs. 79.9 ± 12.6, P = 0.537) blood pressure upon admission between valsartan and Sac/Val treatment groups. The percentage of persistent AF was also comparable (43.8% vs. 53.1%, P = 0.617) in both treatment groups. Patients receiving Sac/Val treatment displayed significant decrease in the left atrial diameter (4.3 ± 0.5 cm to 3.8 ± 0.5 cm, P < 0.001), volume index (48.0 ± 6.4 mL/m 2 to 41.7 ± 7.0 mL/m 2 , P < 0.001), and right atrial diameter (4.4 ± 0.8 cm to 3.9 ± 0.7 cm, P = 0.017) from baseline to 24 weeks after RFCA. This effect was not observed in valsartan treatment group. There was a numerical decrease in AF recurrence rate in the Sac/Val group compared with valsartan group (9.4% vs. 15.6%), although this difference did not reach a statistical significance (P = 0.708). No difference in all-cause hospitalization rate (6.3% in each group) or all-cause death rate (0% in each group) was observed., Conclusions: Our data indicate that Sac/Val is superior to valsartan in attenuating atrial structural remodelling in catheter ablation-treated AF patients., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a new hope for many patients with advanced cancer by blocking tumour immune evasion. However, with the widespread use of ICIs, immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have also been discovered and reported increasingly. Immune-related myocarditis, the most dangerous one of irAEs, still has high mortality in the context of the current treatment. We report the case of a 60-year-old female with fulminant myocarditis induced by ICIs, which caused her to experience frequent ventricular arrhythmias such as ventricular fibrillation and heart failure. She was successfully treated with current mainstream therapies for immune-related myocarditis and additional treatment of sacubitril-valsartan and dapagliflozin. The intriguing observation that the patient condition recovered relatively rapidly in this case shows a possible treatment inspiration, which may be helpful for treating ICIs-associated myocarditis and improving cancer patients' clinical prognosis., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril/valsartan, has been shown to be effective in treatment of patients with heart failure (HF), but limited data are available in patients with advanced disease. This retrospective observational study assessed the effects of ARNI treatment in patients with advanced HF., Methods and Results: We reviewed medical records of all advanced HF patients evaluated at our centre for unconventional therapies from September 2016 to January 2019. We studied 44 patients who started ARNI therapy and who had a haemodynamic assessment before beginning ARNI and after 6 ± 2 months. The primary endpoint was variation in pulmonary pressures and filling pressures at 6 months after starting ARNI therapy. Mean patient age was 51.6 ± 7.4 years; 84% were male. At 6 ± 2 months after starting ARNI, there was significant reduction of systolic pulmonary artery pressure [32 mmHg, interquartile range (IQR) 27-45 vs. 25 mmHg, IQR 22.3-36.5; P < 0.0001] and mean pulmonary artery pressure (20 mmHg, IQR 15.3-29.8 vs. 17 mmHg, IQR 13-24.8; P = 0.046). Five of 22 patients (23%) were deferred from the heart transplant list because of improvement, whereas four were listed de novo. After 23 ± 9 months, three patients were treated with a left ventricular assist device implantation, whereas six patients underwent heart transplantation (one in emergency conditions for refractory ventricular tachycardia)., Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan is effective in reducing filling pressures and pulmonary pressures in patients with advanced HF. The absence of adverse events during follow-up suggests that sacubitril/valsartan is safe and well-tolerated in this cohort of patients., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Heart failure (HF) is a systemic inflammatory disorder with infections being an important cause of morbidity and mortality. We asked if HF patients have a higher susceptibility to infections compared with the general population and if a subtle secondary immunodeficiency facilitates infectious complications., Methods and Results: In a cohort of 92 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, we analysed recirculating lymphocyte subpopulations, serum immunoglobulin levels, and specific antibody titres against pneumococcal antigens. We quantified susceptibility to infections of the respiratory tract with a validated questionnaire and compared it to the general population. Susceptibility to infections of the respiratory tract was comparable in HF patients and the general population. Hypogammaglobulinaemia was present in 16% of HF patients, but anti-pneumococcal titres showed no evidence of specific secondary antibody deficiency. Relative lymphopaenia in our HF cohort was due to B lymphocytopenia with a relative reduction in naive B-cells and expansion of memory B-cells while CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocytes as well as NK-cell counts were comparable between HF and healthy donors. The intake of the angiotensin receptor neprilysin (CD10) inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan was associated with increased B-lymphocyte counts, possibly by an increased output of CD10+ transitional B lymphocytes from the bone marrow., Conclusion: Despite a reduction of B lymphocytes in HF and mild hypogammaglobulinaemia, patients showed no evidence of secondary immunodeficiency or increased susceptibility to infections. The relevance of B-cell lymphopenia in HF patients and modulation of B-cell counts under ARNI treatment remains to be investigated., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: Echo-derived haemodynamic classification, based on forward-flow and left ventricular (LV) filling pressure (LVFP) correlates, has been proposed to phenotype patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). To assess the prognostic relevance of baseline echocardiographically defined haemodynamic profile in ambulatory HFrEF patients before starting sacubitril/valsartan., Methods and Results: In our multicentre, open-label study, HFrEF outpatients were classified into 4 groups according to the combination of forward flow (cardiac index; CI:< or ≥2.0 L/min/m 2 ) and early transmitral Doppler velocity/early diastolic annular velocity ratio (E/e': ≥ or <15): Profile-A: normal-flow, normal-pressure; Profile-B: low-flow, normal-pressure; Profile-C: normal-flow, high-pressure; Profile-D: low-flow, high-pressure. Patients were started on sacubitril/valsartan and followed-up for 12.3 months (median). Rates of the composite of death/HF-hospitalization were assessed by multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models. Twelve sites enrolled 727 patients (64 ± 12 year old; LVEF: 29.8 ± 6.2%). Profile-D had more comorbidities and worse renal and LV function. Target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg BID) was more likely reached in Profile-A (34%) than other profiles (B: 32%, C: 24%, D: 28%, P < 0.001). Event-rate (per 100 patients per year) progressively increased from Profile-A to Profile-D (12.0%, 16.4%, 22.9%, and 35.2%, respectively, P < 0.0001). By covariate-adjusted Cox model, profiles with low forward-flow (B and D) remained associated with poor outcome (P < 0.01). Adding this categorization to MAGGIC-score and natriuretic peptides, provided significant continuous net reclassification improvement (0.329; P < 0.001). Intermediate and high-dose sacubitril/valsartan reduced the event's risk independently of haemodynamic profile., Conclusions: Echocardiographically-derived haemodynamic classification identifies ambulatory HFrEF patients with different risk profiles. In real-world HFrEF outpatients, sacubitril/valsartan is effective in improving outcome across different haemodynamic profiles., (© 2022 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sacubitril/valsartan, confers additional protective effects compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) in terms of reversed left ventricular (LV) remodelling and improves the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). However, few studies have examined the effects of ARNI on the left atrium. Accordingly, this study compared the effects of ARNI and ACEI/ARB on left atrial (LA) remodelling in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: This was a single-centre retrospective study of patients with HFrEF hospitalized at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between 26 February 2016 and 8 July 2020. Patients were classified into ARNI and ACEI/ARB groups and further subgroups based on the left atrial volume index (LAVI): mildly abnormal (29 mL/m 2  ≤ LAVI < 34 mL/m 2 ), moderately abnormal (34 mL/m 2  ≤ LAVI < 40 mL/m 2 ), and severely abnormal (LAVI ≥ 40 mL/m 2 ). The primary endpoint was changes in LA parameters by echocardiography. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 336 patients (mean age: 64.11 ± 12.86, 30.06% female) were included. Except those lost to follow-up, 274 HFrEF patients remained, with 144 cases in the ARNI group and 130 cases in the ACEI/ARB group. Greater reductions from baseline were seen with ARNI in LA diameter (LAD) (P = 0.013, t-test), superior and LA superior-inferior diameter (LASID) (P < 0.0001), LA transverse diameter (LATD) (P < 0.0001), LA volume (LAV) (P < 0.0001), LAVI (P < 0.0001), and LA sphericity index (LASI) (P < 0.0001). Over a mean follow-up of 19.40 months, 97 patients (67.3%) in the ARNI group and 29 patients (22.3%) in the ACEI/ARB group showed LA reverse remodelling (LARR). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly lower overall mortality in the ARNI group compared with the ACEI/ARB group (P = 0.048, log-rank test). The mildly abnormal LAVI group of ARNI patients showed a reduction in mortality compared with ACEI/ARB patients (P = 0.044). However, no significant difference was observed for the moderately abnormal (P = 0.571) or severely abnormal LAVI groups (P = 0.609), suggesting that early initiation of ARNI was associated with a better prognosis., Conclusions: In this proof-of-concept study, ARNI use showed greater effects on LARR and was associated with a better prognosis compared with ACEI/ARB use in HFrEF. Early initiation of ARNI in the HF disease process may produce greater benefit, but this needs to be confirmed in future studies., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In the heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) PARAGON-HF trial, sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan improved mortality/morbidity in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below median (57%). We assessed eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan based on four scenarios., Methods and Results: Eligibility was assessed in the Karolinska-Rennes study (acute HFpEF, LVEF ≥ 45%, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥300 pg/mL subsequently assessed as outpatients including echocardiography) in (i) a trial scenario (all trial criteria); (ii) a pragmatic scenario (selected trial criteria); (iii) LVEF below lower limit of normal range (<54% in women and <52% in men); and (iv) LVEF below mean of normal range (<64% in women and <62% in men). Among 425 patients [age 78 (72-83) years, 57% women, 28% LVEF ≤ 57% (median in PARAGON-HF), the trial scenario, identified 34% as eligible. Left atrial enlargement and/or left ventricular hypertrophy were present in 99%. Inclusion criteria not met were diuretic treatment and New York Heart Association class. Important exclusion criteria were estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , haemoglobin <10 g/day, and cancer. In the pragmatic scenario, 63% were eligible. In LVEF below lower limit of normal range, 5.4% were eligible, and in LVEF below mean of normal range, 41% were eligible. In patients with LVEF ≤ 57%, eligibility was 42%, 69%, 21%, and 91% according to the trial scenario, pragmatic scenario, LVEF below lower limit of normal range, and LVEF below mean of normal range, respectively., Conclusions: In real-world HFpEF (LVEF ≥ 45%) with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and cardiac structure/function assessed, eligibility for sacubitril/valsartan was according to PARAGON-HF complete criteria 34%, pragmatic criteria 63%, LVEF below lower limit of normal range 5.4%, and LVEF below mean of normal range 41%. Cardiac structural impairment was almost ubiquitous. Ineligibility was more due to exclusion criteria than failing to meet inclusion criteria., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality in a randomized controlled trial. However, little is known about real-world efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in Chinese patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to evaluate whether sacubitril/valsartan could improve cardiac function in Chinese patients with HFrEF in a tertiary hospital in China., Methods and Results: Patients with HFrEF receiving sacubitril/valsartan in our hospital between January 2018 and January 2020 were recruited in the present study. We retrospectively collected and analysed all clinical parameters at baseline and during follow-up. A total of 100 consecutive patients (73% male) with HFrEF were recruited in the present study. During a median follow-up period of 365 days [interquartile range (IQR), 346-378], a pronounced improvement of cardiac function was achieved. New York Heart Association classification was significantly improved (P < 0.001), and median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptides level significantly decreased from 3003 pg/mL (IQR, 1513-5404) to 2039 pg/mL (IQR, 921-3955) (P = 0.010). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction increased from 31 ± 6% to 38 ± 10% (P < 0.001) and median left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduced from 63 mm (IQR, 59-67) to 60 mm (IQR, 55-68) (P = 0.001). Mean pulmonary arterial systolic pressure decreased significantly from 49 ± 13 mmHg to 44 ± 12 mmHg (P < 0.001) and median right ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduced from 23 mm (IQR, 21-26) to 22 mm (IQR, 20-25) (P = 0.030). After treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, mean estimated glomerular filtration rate significantly decreased (from 88.8 ± 22.4 mL/min to 71.8 ± 27.3 mL/min, P < 0.001). Median serum creatinine and median blood urea nitrogen levels significantly increased [from 0.9 mg/dL (IQR, 0.8-1.0) to 1.1 mg/dL (IQR, 0.9-1.3), P < 0.001, and from 6.8 mmol/L (IQR, 5.5-8.9) to 8.0 mmol/L (IQR, 6.6-10.3), P = 0.002, respectively]. The proportion of patients with chronic kidney disease Stage 3/4 increased significantly from 8% to 39% (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In Chinese patients with HFrEF, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with a pronounced improvement of cardiac function, but might be prone to a decrease in blood pressure and deterioration in renal function., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) is an acute potentially reversible cardiac syndrome characterized by variable regional myocardial akinesia that cannot be attributed to a culprit coronary artery occlusion. TTS is an important differential diagnosis of acute heart failure where brain natriuretic peptides are elevated. Sacubitril/valsartan is a novel and effective pharmacological agent for the treatment of patients with heart failure. Our aim was to explore whether treatment with sacubitril/valsartan could prevent isoprenaline-induced takotsubo-like phenotype in rats., Methods and Results: A total number of 186 Sprague-Dawley male rats were randomized to receive pretreatment with water (CONTROL, n = 62), valsartan (VAL, n = 62), or sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL, n = 62) before receiving isoprenaline for induction of TTS. We recorded heart rate and blood pressure invasively. Cardiac morphology and function were evaluated by high-resolution echocardiography 90 min after the administration of isoprenaline. We documented the survival rate at the time of echocardiography. Compared with the CONTROL group, the SAC/VAL group had less pronounced TTS-like cardiac dysfunction and lower mortality rate, while the VAL group did not differ. Heart rate and blood pressure were not significantly different between the groups. Analysis of cardiac lipids was performed with mass spectrometry. The VAL and SAC/VAL groups had significantly higher levels of lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC), in particular LPC 18:1 and LPC 16:0., Conclusions: Pretreatment with sacubitril/valsartan but not with valsartan reduces mortality and attenuates isoprenaline-induced apical akinesia in the TTS-like model in rats. Sacubitril/valsartan could be a potential treatment option in patients with TTS in humans., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Despite well-established benefits of sacubitril/valsartan for cardiac reverse remodelling and the prognosis of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there are some patients with limited therapeutic response, even with optimal therapy. We assessed the treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF, focusing on the association between reverse remodelling and the prognosis., Methods and Results: Using a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan, we compared the time trajectory of cardiac function in 415 patients (1258 echocardiograms), according to the occurrence of cardiovascular death and hospitalization for HF during a median follow-up of 19.1 (interquartile range, 10.9-27.6) months. A higher sacubitril/valsartan dose was associated with a better prognosis, whereas advanced age, diabetes, left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, left atrial enlargement, and pulmonary hypertension were associated with a worse prognosis. Patients without an event (n = 337; 81.2%) showed LV reverse remodelling (LV ejection fraction ≥45% or LV end-systolic volume reduction by 15% from baseline), which was typically observed within 6 months of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. Reverse remodelling achievement was significantly associated with a better prognosis. However, patients without reverse remodelling had a worse prognosis, as poor as that in patients with HFrEF not treated with sacubitril/valsartan., Conclusions: In patients with HFrEF treated with sacubitril/valsartan, LV reverse remodelling reflects the treatment response and predicts the prognosis, whereas a lack of reverse remodelling indicates the lack of treatment benefits. Prediction and assessment of reverse remodelling may facilitate the selection of patients with greater benefits by sacubitril/valsartan., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan are second-line therapies for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on guideline recommendations. We aimed to evaluate the synergistic effects of these two medications., Methods and Results: Patients' data were extracted from a multicentre database between 2016 and 2018. Patients were classified into (1) Simultaneous group: simultaneous prescription of ivabradine and sacubitril/valsartan within 6 weeks; (2A) Sequential group, ivabradine-first: ivabradine was prescribed first, followed by sacubitril/valsartan; and (2B) Sequential group, sacubitril/valsartan-first: sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed first, followed by ivabradine. A total of 464 patients with HFrEF were enrolled. Cardiovascular death and/or unplanned re-hospitalizations for HF were less frequent (28.6% vs. 44.8%, P = 0.01), and the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was significantly greater in patients from the Simultaneous group than those from the Sequential group (∆LVEF 12.8 ± 12.9% vs. 9.3 ± 12.6%, P = 0.007). Among Sequential subgroups, the ivabradine-first treatment decreased heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure (SBP) compared with sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment (∆heart rate -9.1 ± 12.9 b.p.m. vs. 2.6 ± 16.0 b.p.m., P < 0.001; ∆SBP 4.6 ± 16.5 mmHg vs. -4.8 ± 17.2 mmHg, P < 0.001), whereas sacubitril/valsartan-first treatment showed a higher degree of LVEF improvement (∆LVEF 3.6 ± 7.8% vs. 0.7 ± 7.7%, P = 0.002) than ivabradine-first treatment. At the end of follow-up, SBP, LVEF, and left ventricular volume were comparable between two Sequential subgroups., Conclusions: Among patients with HFrEF, simultaneous rather than sequential treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and ivabradine was a better strategy to reduce adverse events and achieve left ventricular reverse remodelling. Ivabradine treatment had a more significant benefit on improving haemodynamic stability, whereas sacubitril/valsartan treatment showed a more significant effect on improving LVEF., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) has shown superior effect compared with blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. We aimed to investigate effects of sac/val compared with valsartan in a pressure overload model of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Methods and Results: Sprague-Dawley rats underwent aortic banding or sham (n = 16) surgery and were randomized to sac/val (n = 28), valsartan (n = 29), or vehicle (n = 26) treatment for 8 weeks. Sac/val reduced left ventricular weight by 11% compared with vehicle (P = 0.01) and 9% compared with valsartan alone (P = 0.04). Only valsartan reduced blood pressure compared with sham (P = 0.02). Longitudinal early diastolic strain rate was preserved in sac/val compared with sham, while it was reduced by 23% in vehicle (P = 0.03) and 24% in valsartan (P = 0.02). Diastolic dysfunction, measured by E/e'SR, increased by 68% in vehicle (P < 0.01) and 80% in valsartan alone (P < 0.001), while sac/val showed no increase. Neither sac/val nor valsartan prevented interstitial fibrosis. Although ejection fraction was preserved, we observed mild systolic dysfunction, with vehicle showing a 28% decrease in longitudinal strain (P < 0.01). Neither sac/val nor valsartan treatment improved this dysfunction., Conclusions: In a model of HFpEF induced by cardiac pressure overload, sac/val reduced hypertrophy compared with valsartan alone and ameliorated diastolic dysfunction. These effects were independent of blood pressure. Early systolic dysfunction was not affected, supporting the notion that sac/val has the largest potential in conditions characterized by reduced ejection fraction. Observed anti-hypertrophic effects in preserved ejection fraction implicate potential benefit of sac/val in the clinical setting of hypertrophic remodelling and impaired diastolic function., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Clinical trials and observational cohorts show that beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan are less strong in an appreciable proportion of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Lower blood pressure and impaired renal function predict suboptimal sacubitril/valsartan titration and a less favourable response. Circulating renin encompasses neurohormonal activation, intravascular volume, and renal function. We hypothesized that renin may predict response to sacubitril/valsartan, assessed by changes in N-terminal fraction of pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)., Methods and Results: We performed a prospective, open-label, real-life cohort study. The study population consisted of 80 consecutive HFrEF patients (age 66 ± 10 years, 83% men) planned to initiate sacubitril/valsartan. Clinical and biohumoral assessment, including a full neurohormonal panel, was performed at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 month follow-up. Response to sacubitril/valsartan was defined as ≥30% reduction in NT-proBNP levels from baseline to 6 months. Patients in the lower renin tertile had higher blood pressure and plasma sodium concentration (all P < 0.05). At follow-up, 38 patients (48%) were classified as responders. Circulating renin was lower in the responder group compared with non-responders (19.8 mU/L, IQR 3.7-78.0 mU/L vs. 55.0 mU/L, IQR 16.4-483.1 mU/L; P = 0.004). After adjustment for age, renal function, and blood pressure, renin was independently associated to response to sacubitril/valsartan (P = 0.018)., Conclusions: In our preliminary study, we show that circulating renin predicts reduction in NT-proBNP levels after sacubitril/valsartan initiation in HFrEF patients. Renin assessment might be useful to discriminate potential responders from the subgroup with a weaker expected benefit, thus needing a closer, tailored management strategy., (©2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Heart failure is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, but little is known on heart failure epidemiology and treatment in primary care. This study described patients with heart failure treated by general practitioners, with focus on drug prescriptions and especially on the only specific treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, namely sacubitril/valsartan., Methods and Results: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using data from an electronic medical record database of Swiss general practitioners from 2016 to 2019. Multilevel logistic regression was used to find determinants of sacubitril/valsartan prescription; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. We identified 1288 heart failure patients (48.5% women; age: median 85 years, interquartile range 77-90 years) by means of diagnosis code, representing 0.5% of patients consulting a general practitioner during the observation period. About 73.6% received a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor, 67.8% a beta-blocker, 34.6% a calcium channel blocker, 86.1% a diuretic, and 40.1% another cardiac drug. Sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed in 6% predominantly male patients (OR 2.10, CI 1.25-3.84), of younger age (OR 0.59 per increase in 10 years, CI 0.49-0.71), with diabetes mellitus (OR 1.76, CI 1.07-2.90). The recommended starting dose for sacubitril/valsartan was achieved in 67.1% and the target dose in 28.6% of patients., Conclusions: Prevalence of heart failure among patients treated by general practitioners was low. Considering the disease burden and association with multimorbidity, awareness of heart failure in primary care should be increased, with the aim to optimize heart failure therapy., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Little is known about patient characteristics, outcomes, and the effect of treatment in relation to duration of heart failure (HF). We have investigated these questions in PARADIGM-HF. The aim of the study was to compare patient characteristics, outcomes, and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan, compared with enalapril, in relation to time from HF diagnosis in PARADIGM-HF., Methods and Results: HF duration was categorized as 0-1, >1-2, >2-5, and >5 years. Outcomes were adjusted for prognostic variables, including N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The primary endpoint was the composite of HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. The number of patients in each group was as follows: 0-1 year, 2523 (30%); >1-2 years, 1178 (14%); >2-5 years, 2054 (24.5%); and >5 years, 2644 (31.5%). Patients with longer-duration HF were older, more often male, and had worse New York Heart Association class and quality of life, more co-morbidity, and higher troponin-T but similar NT-proBNP levels. The primary outcome rate (per 100 person-years) increased with HF duration: 0-1 year, 8.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.6-9.2]; >1-2 years, 11.2 (10.0-12.7); >2-5 years, 13.4 (12.4-14.6); and >5 years, 14.2 (13.2-15.2); P < 0.001. The hazard ratio was 1.26 (95% CI 1.07-1.48), 1.52 (1.33-1.74), and 1.53 (1.33-1.75), respectively, for >1-2, >2-5, and >5 years, compared with 0-1 year. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across HF duration for all outcomes, with the primary endpoint hazard ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.67-0.97) for 0-1 year and 0.73 (0.63-0.84) in the >5 year group. For the primary outcome, the number needed to treat for >5 years was 18, compared with 29 for 0-1 year., Conclusions: Patients with longer-duration HF had more co-morbidity, worse quality of life, and higher rates of HF hospitalization and death. The benefit of a neprilysin inhibitor was consistent, irrespective of HF duration. Switching to sacubitril/valsartan had substantial benefits, even in patients with long-standing HF., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

A worsening renal function is prevalent among patients with cardiovascular disease, especially heart failure (HF). Sacubitril/valsartan appears to prevent worsening of renal function and progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) as compared with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors alone in HF patients. It is unclear whether these advantages are present in HF patients only, or can be extended to other categories of patients, in which this drug was studied. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the consistency of effect size regarding renal outcome across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sacubitril/valsartan with RAS inhibitors in patients with or without HF. We searched Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and Thomson Reuters Web of Science databases until June 2020. We took into account RCTs that compared sacubitril/valsartan with a RAS inhibitor and reported data regarding renal function. We used random-effects models to obtain summary odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We extracted hazard ratios for renal outcomes, glomerular filtration rate slopes or rates of renal adverse events. Sensitivity analyses were performed by moderator analysis and random-effects meta-regression. The search revealed 10 RCTs (published between 2012 and 2019) on 16 456 subjects. Sacubitril/valsartan resulted in a lower risk of renal dysfunction as compared with RAS inhibitors alone [k = 10; pooled OR = 0.70 (95% CI 0.57-0.85); P < 0.001], with a moderate inconsistency between studies [Q(9) = 15.18; P = 0.086; I 2  = 40.73%]. A stronger association was found in studies including older patients (k = 10; β = -0.047730; P = 0.020) or HF patients with preserved ejection fraction [pooled OR = 0.53 (0.41-0.68) vs. 0.76 (0.57-1.01) for studies on HF patients with reduced ejection fraction; P for comparison = 0.065]. The effect size did not change with different comparators (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors vs. angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockers, P = 0.279). No significant association was found when the analysis was restricted to studies on non-HF patients [k = 3; pooled OR = 0.86 (0.61-1.22); P = 0.403] and studies with high risk of bias [k = 3; pooled OR = 0.34 (0.08-1.44); P = 0.143]. Our findings support the role of sacubitril/valsartan on preservation of renal function, especially in older patients and HF patients with preserved ejection fraction. However, evidence is currently limited to HF patients, while the renal outcome of sacubitril/valsartan therapy outside the HF setting needs to be further investigated., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Hypertension is a significant risk for the development of left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, followed by heart failure and sudden cardiac death. While therapy with sacubitril/valsartan (SV) reduces the risk of sudden cardiac death in patients with heart failure and systolic dysfunction, the effect on those with diastolic dysfunction remains unclear. We hypothesized that, in the animal model of hypertensive heart disease, treatment with SV reduces the susceptibility to ventricular arrhythmia., Methods and Results: Young adult female spontaneous hypertensive rats (SHRs) were randomly separated into three groups, which were SHRs, SHRs treated with valsartan, and SHRs treated with SV. In addition, the age-matched and weight-matched Wistar Kyoto rats were considered as controls, and there were 12 rats in each group. In vivo ventricular tachyarrhythmia induction and in vitro optical mapping were used to measure the inducibility of ventricular arrhythmias and to characterize the dynamic properties of electrical propagation. The level of small-conductance Ca 2+ -activated potassium channel type 2 (KCNN2) was analysed in cardiac tissue. Compared with SHR with left ventricular hypertrophy, treatment with SV significantly improved cardiac geometry (relative wall thickness, 0.68 ± 0.11 vs. 0.76 ± 0.13, P < 0.05) and diastolic dysfunction (isovolumetric relaxation time, 59.4 ± 3.2 vs. 70.5 ± 4.2 ms, P < 0.05; deceleration time of mitral E wave, 46 ± 4.8 vs. 42 ± 3.8, P < 0.05). The incidence of induced ventricular arrhythmia was significantly reduced in SHR treated with SV compared with SHR (ventricular tachycardia, 1.14 ± 0.32 vs. 2.91 ± 0.5 episodes per 10 stimuli, P < 0.001; ventricular fibrillation, 1.72 ± 0.31 vs. 5.81 ± 0.42 episodes per 10 stimuli, P < 0.001). The prolonged action potential duration (APD) and increase of the maximum slope of APD restitution were observed in SHR, while the treatment of SV improved the arrhythmogeneity (APD, 37.12 ± 6.18 vs. 92.41 ± 10.71 ms at 250 ms pacing cycle length, P < 0.001; max slope 0.29 ± 0.01 vs. 1.48 ± 0.04, P < 0.001). These effects were strongly associated with down-regulation of KCNN2 (0.38 ± 0.07 vs. 0.74 ± 0.12 ng/ml, P < 0.001). The treatment of SV also decreased the level of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, cardiac bridging integrator-1, and intramyocardial fibrosis of SHR., Conclusions: In conclusion, synergistic blockade of the neprilysin and the renin-angiotensin system by SV in SHRs results in KCNN2-associated electrical remodelling in ventricle, which stabilizes electrical dynamics and attenuates arrhythmogenesis., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety profile in terms of changes in renal function after co-treatment with sacubitril/valsartan and empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and Results: This multicentre observational analysis included 108 patients with T2D and HFrEF treated with both agents: baseline sacubitril/valsartan (Group A; n = 43), baseline empagliflozin (Group B; n = 42), or both agents initiated simultaneously (Group C; n = 23). The primary endpoint was estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) dynamics across treatment groups. A binary characterization of worsening renal function (WRF)/improved renal function (IRF) was included in the primary endpoint. WRF and IRF were defined as an increase/decrease in serum creatinine ≥ 0.3 mg/dL or GFR ≥ 20%. Changes in quantitative variables were evaluated using joint modelling of survival and longitudinal data (JM). Rates and their treatment differences were determined by Poisson regression. The mean left ventricle ejection fraction and eGFR were 32 ± 6% and 70 ± 28 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , respectively. At a median follow-up of 1.01 years (inter-quartile range 0.71-1.50), 377 outpatient visits were recorded. Although there were differences in GFR trajectories over time within each treatment, they did not achieve statistical significance (omnibus P = 0.154). However, when these differences were contrasted among groups, there was a significant decrease in GFR in Group A as compared with Group B (P = 0.002). The contrast between Groups C and B was not significant (P = 0.430). These differences were also reflected when the rates for WRF and IRF were contrasted among treatments., Conclusions: The co-administration of sacubitril/valsartan and empagliflozin in patients with HFrEF and concomitant T2D appears to be safe in terms of renal function., (©2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The aim of this study is to study the introduction of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) in Sweden with regards to regional differences, clinical characteristics, titration patterns, and determinants of use and discontinuation., Methods and Results: A national cohort of heart failure was defined from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register and National Patient Register. A subcohort with additional data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (SwedeHF) was also studied. Cohorts were subdivided as per sac/val prescription and registration in SwedeHF. Median sac/val prescription rate was 20 per 100 000 inhabitants. Between April 2016 and December 2017, we identified 2037 patients with ≥1 sac/val prescription, of which 1144 (56%) were registered in SwedeHF. Overall, patients prescribed with sac/val were younger, more frequently male, and had less prior cardiovascular disease than non-sac/val patients. In SwedeHF subcohort, patients prescribed with sac/val had lower ejection fraction. Overall, younger age [hazard ratio 2.81 (95% confidence interval 2.45-3.22)], registration in SwedeHF [1.97 (1.83-2.12)], male gender [1.50 (1.37-1.64)], ischaemic heart disease [1.50 (1.39-1.62)], lower left ventricular ejection fraction [3.06 (2.18-4.31)], and New York Heart Association IV [1.50 (1.22-1.84)] were predictors for sac/val use. As initiation dose in the sac/val cohort, 38% received 24/26 mg, 54% 49/51 mg, and 9% 97/103 mg. Up-titration to the target dose was achieved in 57% of the overall cohort over a median follow-up of 6 months. The estimated treatment persistence for any dose at 360 days was 82%., Conclusions: Implementation of sac/val in Sweden was slow and varied five-fold across different regions; younger age, male, SwedeHF registration, and ischaemic heart disease were among the independent predictors of receiving sac/val. Overall, treatment persistence and tolerability was high., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

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., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The aim of this paper was to analyse heart failure (HF) signs and symptoms, hospital referrals, and prescription patterns in patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) in primary care and cardiology settings in Germany., Methods and Results: A retrospective cohort study of electronic medical records identified 1263 adults (aged ≥18 years) in the German IMS® Disease Analyzer database who were prescribed sac/val during 2016 and had at least 6 months of data following sac/val initiation. Clinical characteristics were collected during the 12 months before the first recorded sac/val prescription (index date) and 6 months post-index. Details of sac/val dose and prescription patterns were also recorded in the 6 months post-index. HF signs, symptoms, and all-cause hospital referrals were evaluated for 90 days pre-index and 30-120 days post-index. Most patients (62%) were prescribed the lowest sac/val dose of 24/26 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) at index; only 14% of patients initiated on 24/26 mg or 49/51 mg b.i.d. were up-titrated to the 97/103 mg b.i.d. target dose during the 6 months post-index, while 6% of patients initiated on either 49/51 mg or 97/103 mg b.i.d. were stably down-titrated. Evaluation of prescription patterns in relation to clinical characteristics did not clearly explain the reluctance to up-titrate in the majority of patients. More patients experienced HF signs or symptoms or all-cause referrals to hospital during the 90 days pre-index than during the 30-120 days post-index., Conclusions: The majority of patients receiving sac/val are not up-titrated, contrary to recommendations of the EU summary of product characteristics; this is not fully explained by patients' clinical characteristics. Further research is required to understand the reasons for clinician inertia., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

The use of sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduces death or hospitalization in patients with ejection fraction < 40%. There is no study evaluating this drug effects in non-compaction cardiomyopathy (NCCM) individuals. The aim of this article is to report a case of a patient with NCCM initially refractory to gold standard treatment and afterwards treated with sacubitril/valsartan and its improvements. This is a case report of a 48-year-old woman, presenting with NCCM heart failure, who had received standard guideline-directed medical therapy for 18 months without any improvement in clinical and echocardiographic parameters. After that period, sacubitril/valsartan was initiated. After 18 months of refractory usage of guideline-directed medical therapy, sacubitril/valsartan was started, and significant change in functional class (III to I) and important ventricular remodelling were achieved with an improvement of 29% in the ejection fraction, reduction of 7 mm in ventricular diastolic diameter, and mild to none mitral valve functional regurgitation. In this case report, sacubitril/valsartan use was associated with improvement of echocardiographic and clinical parameters in a patient with NCCM., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) reduced heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality compared with enalapril in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACE-I to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure trial. However, this trial excluded patients with end stage of renal disease (ESRD); thus, the efficacy and safety of SV in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with ESRD remains uncertain., Methods and Results: We retrospectively analysed the clinical and laboratory data of 501 HFrEF patients who administered with SV from March 2017 to April 2019 in a single tertiary university hospital. A total of 23 HFrEF patients with ESRD on dialysis [58.3% non-ischaemic heart failure; left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): 29.7 ± 4.4%] were included in this study. At baseline and follow-up visit, we evaluated cardiovascular biomarkers such as high-sensitive troponin T (hsTnT), soluble ST2 (sST2), echocardiographic parameters, and clinical and adverse events. The mean dose of SV was 90 ± 43 mg/day at baseline and 123 ± 62 mg/day at last follow-up (follow-up duration: median 132 days). The level of hsTnT was significantly reduced from 236.2 ± 355.3 to 97.0 ± 14.0 pg/mL (P = 0.002), and the sST2 level was significantly reduced from 40.4 ± 44.0 to 19.6 ± 14.1 ng/mL (P = 0.005). LVEF was significantly improved from 29.7 ± 4.4% to 40.8 ± 10.4% (P = 0.002). During the follow-up, up-titration, down-titration, and maintenance of SV dosing were observed in 7 (30%), 5 (21.7%), and 11 patients (47.8%), respectively. SV down-titration group had adverse events including symptomatic hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg) (n = 4) and dizziness (n = 1), but they did not discontinue SV therapy., Conclusions: We found that SV could safely reduce the hsTnT and sST2 levels and improve LVEF in HFrEF patients with ESRD. As far as we know, this is the first study to show the efficacy and safety of SV in HFrEF with ESRD on dialysis. Larger prospective, long-term follow-up study should be warranted., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The introduction of sacubitril/valsartan (an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor) is likely to change the approach to the management of patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The Assessment of Real Life Care-Describing European Heart Failure Management (ARIADNE) registry will evaluate patient characteristics, practice patterns, outcomes, and healthcare resource utilization in the outpatient setting across Europe, with the main focus on factors that guide physicians' decisions to start and continue sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFrEF., Methods and Results: ARIADNE, a prospective, observational registry will enrol 9000 ambulatory patients with HFrEF in 23 European countries Supplement 1. The study will describe 4500 patients treated with conventional treatment (including an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker), and 4500 patients started on sacubitril/valsartan. In each country, patients will be enrolled consecutively over an expected period of 12 months, and followed-up for 12 months. The primary objective is to describe the baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with chronic HFrEF, which guide the decision of the treating physician to initiate sacubitril/valsartan or to continue conventional treatment. A co-primary objective is to identify the baseline characteristics that are associated with the likelihood of reaching the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan 97/103 mg twice daily during follow-up., Conclusions: The ARIADNE registry will provide a comprehensive profile of patients with chronic HFrEF in Europe, will elucidate how management varies between countries, and will help clarify the usage and outcomes associated with use of sacubitril/valsartan in real life., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aim: Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor developed for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Its benefits are achieved through the inhibition of neprilysin (NEP) and the specific blockade of the angiotensin receptor AT1. The many peptides metabolized by NEP suggest multifaceted potential consequences of its inhibition. We sought to evaluate the short-term changes in serum endorphin (EP) values and their relation with patients' physical functioning after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment., Methods and Results: A total of 105 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, who were candidates for sacubitril/valsartan treatment, were included in this prospective, observational, multicentre, and international study. In a first visit, and in agreement with current guidelines, treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocker was replaced by sacubitril/valsartan because of clinical indication by the responsible physician. By protocol, patients were reevaluated at 30 days after the start of sacubitril/valsartan. Serum levels of α- (α-EP), γ-Endorphin (γ-EP), and soluble NEP (sNEP) were measured using enzyme-linked immunoassays. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was used as an indicator of patient's functional status. Baseline median levels of circulating α-EP, γ-EP, and sNEP were 582 (160-772), 101 (37-287), and 222 pg/mL (124-820), respectively. There was not a significant increase in α-EP nor γ-EP serum values after sacubitril/valsartan treatment (P value = 0.194 and 0.102, respectively). There were no significant differences in sNEP values between 30 days and baseline (P value = 0.103). Medians (IQR) of Δα-EP, Δγ-EP, and ΔsNEP between 30 days and baseline were 9.3 (-34 - 44), -3.0 (-46.0 - 18.9), and 0 units (-16.4 - 157.0), respectively. In a pre-post sacubitril/valsartan treatment comparison, there was a significant improvement in NYHA class, with 36 (34.3%) patients experiencing improvement by at least one NYHA class category. Δα-EP and ΔsNEP showed to be significantly associated with NYHA class after 30 days of treatment (P = 0.014 and P < 0.001, respectively). Δα-EP was linear and significantly associated with NYHA class improvement after 30 days of sacubitril/valsartan treatment., Conclusions: These preliminary data suggest that beyond the haemodynamic benefits achieved with sacubitril/valsartan, the altered cleavage of endorphin peptides by NEP inhibition may participate in patients' symptoms improvement., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate prospectively the effect of sacubitril/valsartan in advanced heart failure (HF) patients in waiting list for heart transplantation (HT) and the effect on physical frailty (PF)., Methods and Results: We treated 37 consecutive patients with advanced HF with sacubitril/valsartan. Patients were followed up until HT, device implant, or last follow-up visit after 2 years of follow-up. At baseline, mean New York Heart Association (NYHA) class was 3.1 ± 0.4, with 64.9% in NYHA III and 35.1% NYHA IIIB. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 23.5 ± 5.8%, VO 2 max was 10.3 ± 2.3 mL/kg/min, cardiac index was 2.3 ± 0.5 L/min/m 2 , and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) was 4943.0 ± 5326.8 pg/mL. After a mean follow-up of 17.1 ± 4.4 months, no deaths were observed, but NYHA class improved significantly with 56.8% in NYHA II, 40.5% in NYHA III, and 2.7% in NYHA IIIB (P < 0.001). VO 2 max and 6 min walk test (6MWT) increased, whereas pulmonary systolic blood pressure, E/E', VE/VCO 2 slope, and NT-pro-BNP decreased. At right heart catheterization performed after 1 year of follow-up, cardiac index and pulmonary vascular resistance remained stable, while a decrease in systolic pulmonary artery pressure and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure is observed. Furosemide dosage decrease from 102.7 ± 69.4 to 78.7 ± 66.3 mg (P = 0.040). PF decreased from 3.35 ± 1.0 at baseline to 1.57 ± 1.3 at the end of follow-up (P < 0.001), with a reduction in all PF domains., Conclusions: Our study showed a rapid improvement in PF in HT waiting list patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan. The improvement in all PF domains was paralleled by VO 2 and 6MWT increase and together with an NT-pro-BNP reduction constant over the follow-up., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: In May 2016, a new version of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines for the management of heart failure (HF) was released. The aim of this study was to describe the management of HF with reduced ejection fraction after the publication of ESC Guidelines., Methods and Results: The Linx registry is a multicentre, observational, cross-sectional study from 14 Catalan hospitals that enrolled 1056 patients with HF and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (≤40%) from 1 February to 30 April 2017 in outpatient cardiology clinics. Results were compared between hospitals according to their level of complexity in our own registry and compared with previously published registries similar to ours. Sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed to 23.9% of patients in our population, as a consequence, use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blockers in monotherapy decreased to 48.1% and 16.9%, respectively, and prescription of beta-blockers (91.8%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (72.7%), and ivabradine (21.4%) remained similar to previous registries. Target doses of beta-blockers (25.4%), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (24.9%), angiotensin receptor blockers (7.7%), sacubitril/valsartan (8.1%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (19.7%) were accomplished in a low proportion of patients. Our results also suggest that prescription and up-titration of class I HF drugs were greater in hospitals with higher level of complexity., Conclusions: The Linx registry shows an appropriate adherence to pharmacological recommendations from ESC HF Guidelines despite a low proportion of patients reached target doses. Almost one-quarter of patients were under treatment with sacubitril/valsartan a few months after ESC HF Guidelines recommendations., (© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

The aim of this study is to reveal the causal relationship between dilated cardiomyopathy and aldosteronoma. A 44-year-old male dilated cardiomyopathy patient with aldosteronoma, who demonstrated a worse cardiac function after 1 year therapy with optimized dosage of sacubirtil/valsartan, furosemide, metoprolol, and spironolactone. The patient shows a promising prognosis after aldosteronoma removal procedure. Aldosteronoma may cause dilated cardiomyopathy. We assume that the optimal treatment for aldosteronoma-induced dilated cardiomyopathy is surgical removal combined with drugs., (© 2019 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Sacubitril/valsartan is safe when initiated during hospitalization in a clinical trial setting. Its safety in real-life population is not stablished. We compared the initiation of sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization in a non-selected population, in the PIONEER-HF trial, and in non-selected outpatients., Methods and Results: Multicentre registry included 527 patients: 100 were started on sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization (19.0%) and 427 as outpatients (81.0%). Compared with those in the pivotal trial, inpatients in our cohort were older (71 ± 12 vs. 61 ± 14 years; P < 0.001); had more frequently Functional Class II (41 [41.0%] vs. 100 [22.7%]; P < 0.001), higher levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (4044 [1630-8680] vs. 2013 [1002-4132] pg/mL; P < 0.001), better glomerular filtration rate (63.5 [51.0-80.0] vs. 58.4 [47.5-71.5] mL/min; P = 0.01), and higher systolic blood pressure (121 [110-136] vs. 118 [110-133] mmHg; P = 0.03); and received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers more frequently (92 [92.0%] vs. 208 [52.7%]; P < 0.001). Compared with non-selected outpatients, inpatients were older (71 ± 12 vs. 68 ± 12 years, P = 0.02), had more frequent Functional Class III-IV (58 [58.0%] vs. 129 [30.3%], P < 0.001), had higher levels of N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (4044 [1630-8680] vs. 2182 [1134-4172]; P < 0.001), and were receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers target dose less frequently (55 [55.0%] vs. 335 [78.5%]; P < 0.001). They also started sacubitril/valsartan with a low dose (50 mg/12 h) more frequently (80 [80.0%] vs. 209 [48.8%], P < 0.001). The initiation of sacubitril/valsartan in outpatients was an independent predictor of high-dose use (OR 3.1; 95% confidence interval 1.7-5.6, P < 0.001). The follow-up time in both cohorts, including all patients enrolled, was similar (7.0 ± 0.1 vs. 7.2 ± 2.6 months, P = 0.72). All-cause admissions during follow-up were more frequent in inpatients (30 [30.0%] vs. 68 outpatients [15.9%], P = 0.001), with no relevant differences in all-cause mortality. There was no significant difference in sacubitril/valsartan withdrawal rate (17 inpatients [17.0%] vs. 49 outpatients [11.5%], P = 0.13). The incidence of adverse effects was also similar: hypotension (16 inpatients [16.0%] vs. 71 outpatients [16.7%], P = 0.88), worsening renal function (7 inpatients [7.0%] vs. 29 outpatients [6.8%], P = 0.94), and hyperkalaemia (1 inpatient [1.0%] vs. 21 outpatients [4.9%], P = 0.09). We did not register any case of angioedema., Conclusions: It is safe to initiate sacubitril/valsartan during hospitalization in daily clinical practice. Inpatients have a higher risk profile and receive low starting doses more frequently than outpatients., (© 2019 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

The aim of this report is to describe the feasibility and tolerability of medical treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in a patient treated with hemodialysis. We describe the case of a 67-year-old man with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction due to an ischemic cardiomyopathy and renal insufficiency undergoing hemodialysis. Because of worsening heart failure with no other therapeutic options, a treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was started. Although this patient had a very low systolic blood pressure, he could tolerate a moderate dose of 49/51 mg twice daily. After initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, there was a symptomatic improvement with a clear reduction NT-proBNP, accompanied by a decrease in filling pressures. In conclusion, in this patient with severe heart failure undergoing hemodialysis, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was feasible, safe, and improved heart failure symptoms., (© 2019 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Limited data are available regarding the ability of sacubitril/valsartan to provide clinically meaningful health-related quality of life (HRQoL) improvements among individuals with heart failure (HF). Objective measurement of physical activity and sleep using actigraphy can provide insight into daily functioning and HRQoL., Methods and Results: We designed an 18 week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study to objectively assess changes in function and HRQoL directly after initiating sacubitril/valsartan vs. enalapril in participants with HF in their home environments. A total of 136 outpatient, ambulatory participants with New York Heart Association Class II or III HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) will be included in the study. Patients will undergo a 2 week baseline observational phase (continuing current HF treatment); data from the second week of this phase will be the baseline value for comparison with those of subsequent periods. Patients will then enter an 8 week blinded-treatment phase (randomly assigned 1:1 to sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril), followed by an 8 week open-label extension phase (treatment with only sacubitril/valsartan). The primary efficacy endpoint is the change in mean activity counts during the most active 30 min of the participant's day between baseline and the final randomized treatment phase measurement. Secondary endpoints include the change in mean sleep activity during the randomized and open-label phases; questionnaires will also assess HRQoL measures. Rather than analysing pooled actigraphy data, the researchers are considering each participant to be acting as his or her own control., Conclusions: This will be the first study to assess the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on objective measures of sleep and activity in individuals with HFrEF within the context of their daily lives. Wearable accelerometer devices will be used to gain insight into how the medication affects physical activity and sleep., (© 2019 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced heart failure hospitalization and mortality in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). However, real-world data from its use are lacking., Methods and Results: We retrospectively assessed all baseline and follow-up data of consecutive heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction receiving therapy with sacubitril/valsartan for Class I recommendation between December 2016 and July 2017. Baseline characteristics and dose titration of sacubitril/valsartan were compared between patients in clinical practice and in PARADIGM-HF. A total of 120 patients (81% male) were switched from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker to sacubitril/valsartan. A total of 20.1% of patients received dose uptitration. Patients were treated with an equipotential dose of renin-angiotensin system blockers before and after uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (57 ± 29% vs. 53 ± 29% of target dose indicated by European Society of Cardiology guidelines; P = 0.286). However, they received a lower dose of sacubitril/valsartan in comparison with those in the PARADIGM-HF (219 ± 12 vs. 375 ± 75 mg; P < 0.001). In comparison with the patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan in PARADIGM-HF, patients in clinical practice were older and had a higher serum creatinine, higher New York Heart Association functional classification, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (all P-value <0.05). Even in comparison with patients who experienced dropout during the run-in phase of PARADIGM-HF, real-world patients exhibited baseline characteristics indicative of more disease severity. Patients were at high absolute baseline risk for adverse outcome as illustrated by the EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) risk score of 6 (inter-quartile range 3), in comparison with 5 (inter-quartile range 4) in PARADIGM-HF. After initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, New York Heart Association class significantly improved (P < 0.001), but systolic blood pressure dropped more than was reported in PARADIGM-HF (7.1 ± 8.0 vs. 3.2 ± 0.4 mmHg; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Patients in clinical practice exhibit baseline characteristics associated with more severe disease, which might lead to prescription of lower doses. Nevertheless, patients in clinical practice are at high risk of adverse outcome as illustrated by the EMPHASIS-HF risk score, underscoring the large potential for sacubitril/valsartan therapy to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality., (© 2018 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)