Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) can measure atrial fibrillation (AF) early; however, the timing for administering antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to suppress AF remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association between baseline values and changes after AAD in terms of relative reduction of AF burden (RRAB) and maximum AF duration (RRMD). Methods: This multicenter retrospective study screened all patients with nonpermanent AF who had dual‐chamber pacemakers and only enrolled those receiving a naive AAD between September 2009 and December 2014. AF burden and maximum duration were calculated using CIED at 0 and 3 to 6 months after starting rhythm control. All the enrolled patients were divided into four groups according to baseline AF burden. RRAB and RRMD were monitored using CIEDs. Results: Overall, 145 eligible subjects received a naive AAD for nonpermanent AF. The mean RRAB in the four groups (AF burden <1%, 1%‐4%, 4%‐18%, and ≥18%) were −65.3%, −46.4%, −34.7%, and −27.9% (P = 0.005), respectively. Mean RRMD were −26.8%, −12.4%, 4.2%, and 6.0%, respectively (P = 0.006). Multivariate analysis revealed that the lowest baseline AF burden (<1%) was significantly associated with greater RRAB, which was not observed in the RRMD model. Conclusions: Lower baseline AF burden was associated with greater RRAB by AADs. Our finding suggests that rhythm control should be started in the early stage to achieve better responses to AADs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]