Search

Copyright of Journal of Medical Biochemistry is the property of Society of Medical Biochemists of Serbia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Medical Biochemistry is the property of Society of Medical Biochemists of Serbia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective • Heart failure is a common cardiovascular disease, and its prevalence is increasing year by year. For patients with heart failure combined with non-valvular reduced ejection fraction, drug therapy has always been a key treatment. This study aimed to explore the clinical efficacy of sacubitril valsartan sodium and enalapril in such patients. Methods • Study design: This study used a prospective observational design. From February 2020 to February 2022, we included 123 patients with non-valvular heart failure and reduced ejection fraction who were treated in Xingtai Third Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups according to the treatment plan: Group A (n=61) received enalapril, and Group B (n=62) received nifedipine. All patients received conventional treatment. We compared the efficacy of the two groups of patients 8 weeks after treatment. During the study, the laboratory indicators, echocardiographic indicators, cardiovascular markers, and possible adverse reactions of the two groups of patients before and after treatment were recorded. Results • After 8 weeks of treatment, the effective rate of group B was higher than group A (P < .05). There were no differences in the levels of total protein, total bilirubin, total cholesterol and serum creatinine between the two groups before and after treatment (P > .05). The serum creatinine level in the two groups after treatment was higher than that before treatment, and the level in group B was lower than that in group A (P < .05). There were no statistically significant differences in the levels of total protein, total bilirubin and total cholesterol between the two groups before and after treatment (P > .05), and there was no statistically significant difference in the level of serum creatinine between the two groups before treatment (P > .05), and the level of serum creatinine after treatment was higher than that before treatment, and the level of group B was lower than that of group A (P < .05). Before treatment, there was no significant difference in the levels of high-sensitive troponin T and n-terminal brain natriuretic peptide and cyclic guanosine phosphate between the two groups (P > .05). After treatment, the levels of high- sensitive troponin T and N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide in the two groups were lower than those before treatment, and those in group B were lower than those in group A. The level of cyclic guanosine phosphate in group A was lower than that before treatment, the level of cyclic guanosine phosphate in group B was higher than that before treatment, and the level of group B was higher than that of group A (P < .05). The incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in group B was lower than that in group A (P < .05). In this study, the effective rate of treatment group B was significantly higher than that of treatment group A, indicating that treatment group B had a better therapeutic effect. In addition, there were no significant differences between the two groups in a series of biochemical parameters, but it is worth noting that after treatment, the serum creatinine level of group B was significantly lower than that of group A, which may indicate that the treatment of group B is not only more effective but also Reduces the risk of certain adverse cardiovascular events. Conclusion • The main findings of the study showed that Sacubitril valsartan sodium showed better clinical efficacy than enalapril in patients with heart failure and non-valvular reduced ejection fraction. Specifically, the drug significantly improved patients’ kidney function, reduced cardiovascular marker levels, and reduced the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events. These findings have important clinical implications for guiding treatment selection in patients with heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective • The objective of this study was to investigate the early application of sacubitril valsartan sodium (LCZ696) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and its impact on ventricular remodeling and the TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway in patients. Methods • The clinical data of 73 patients with AMI admitted to the hospital from June 2021 to September 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, and the patients were grouped according to the treatment methods, including 36 cases in the control group (conventional drug treatment) and 37 cases in the observation group (conventional drug + LCZ696 treatment). The clinical efficacy, cardiac function parameters [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), stroke volume (SV)], cardiac function biochemical indicators [N-terminal pro-Btype natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), galectin 3 (Gal-3), amino-terminal peptide of type III procollagen (PIIINP)], ventricular remodeling indicators [left ventricular posterior wall end-diastolic thickness (PWD), posterior wall end-systolic thickness (PWS), ventricular septal end-systolic thickness (IVSS)], ventricular hydrodynamic parameters [left ventricular flow rate in peak ejection (FRPE), flow reversal rate (FRR), flow reversal interval (FRI)], TGF-β 1/Smad3 signaling pathway-related indicators (TGF-β1, Smad3), quality of life score (SF-36 Quality of Life Scale) and occurrence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results • The main findings of the study are as follows: The observation group was significantly better than the control group in many aspects such as overall clinical effectiveness, cardiac function parameters, biochemical indicators, ventricular structure and function, TGF-β1/Smad3 signaling pathway, and quality of life. Specifically, the observation group showed more significant positive effects in terms of improvement of cardiac function, adjustment of biochemical status, and adjustment of ventricular structure and fluid dynamics parameters. These results provide strong support for the application of new therapeutic approaches in the management of cardiovascular disease. After treatment, the total clinical effective rate in the observation group (89.19%) was significantly higher than that in the control group (69.44%) (P < .05). LVEF and SV in the two groups were significantly increased (P < .05), while LVEDD was significantly decreased (P < .05), and there were statistically significant differences in parameters between the two groups (P < .05). The levels of NT-proBNP, Gal-3 and PIIINP in both groups were significantly reduced (P < .05), and the levels in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05). The PWD, PWS and IVSS in both groups significantly declined (P < .05), and the indicators in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05). The FRPE and FRR in the two groups were significantly enhanced (P < .05), while the FRI was significantly reduced (P < .05), and the differences in the above parameters between the two groups were statistically significant (P < .05). The levels of TGF-β1 and Smad3 in the two groups were significantly declined (P < .05), and the levels in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05). During the period from before treatment to 6 months of treatment, the quality of life score in the two groups showed a significant downward trend (P < .05), and the score in the observation group after 3 months to 6 months of treatment was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < .05). During treatment, there was no statistical significance in the total incidence rate of adverse reactions between the two groups (P > .05). Conclusion • Early application of LCZ696 after AMI has a significant efficacy, and it can effectively improve the ventricular remodeling, regulate the expression levels of TGF-β1 and Smad3, inhibit the TGF-β1/ Smad3 signaling pathway, promote the improvements of cardiac function and quality of life, and it has good safety and is worthy of clinical promotion and application. The study’s key findings have important clinical implications for understanding and managing acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The observation group showed significant improvements in overall clinical efficacy, cardiac function, biochemical status, ventricular structure and function, etc., providing strong evidence for comprehensive treatment of AMI patients. This treatment method is expected to become an important part of the care and treatment strategy for AMI patients, help reduce cardiovascular risk, improve quality of life, and provide new research directions for future AMI treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]