Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan on Left Atrial Volume in Patients With Pre-Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: The PARABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pre-heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (pre-HFpEF) is common and has no specific therapy aside from cardiovascular risk factor management. Objective: To investigate the hypothesis that sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan would reduce left atrial volume index using volumetric cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with pre-HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Personalized Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor] With ARB [angiotensin-receptor blocker] in Patients With Natriuretic Peptide Elevation (PARABLE) trial was a prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial carried out over 18 months between April 2015 and June 2021. The study was conducted at a single outpatient cardiology center in Dublin, Ireland. Of 1460 patients in the STOP-HF program or outpatient cardiology clinics, 461 met initial criteria and were approached for inclusion. Of these, 323 were screened and 250 asymptomatic patients 40 years and older with hypertension or diabetes, elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) greater than 20 pg/mL or N-terminal pro-b-type natriuretic peptide greater than 100 pg/mL, left atrial volume index greater than 28 mL/m2, and preserved ejection fraction greater than 50% were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized to angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan titrated to 200 mg twice daily or matching angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan titrated to 160 mg twice daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: Maximal left atrial volume index and left ventricular end diastolic volume index, ambulatory pulse pressure, N-terminal pro-BNP, and adverse cardiovascular events. Results: Among the 250 participants in this study, the median (IQR) age was 72.0 (68.0-77.0) years; 154 participants (61.6%) were men and 96 (38.4%) were women. Most (n = 245 [98.0%]) had hypertension and 60 (24.0%) had type 2 diabetes. Maximal left atrial volume index was increased in patients assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan (6.9 mL/m2; 95% CI, 0.0 to 13.7) vs valsartan (0.7 mL/m2; 95% CI, -6.3 to 7.7; P < .001) despite reduced markers of filling pressure in both groups. Changes in pulse pressure and N-terminal pro-BNP were lower in the sacubitril/valsartan group (-4.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -7.2 to -1.21 and -17.7%; 95% CI, -36.9 to 7.4, respectively; P < .001) than the valsartan group (-1.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, -4.1 to 1.7 and 9.4%; 95% CI, -15.6 to 4.9, respectively; P < .001). Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 6 patients (4.9%) assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 17 (13.3%) assigned to receive valsartan (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.89; adjusted P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial of patients with pre-HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan treatment was associated with a greater increase in left atrial volume index and improved markers of cardiovascular risk compared to valsartan. More work is needed to understand the observed increased cardiac volumes and long-term effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with pre-HFpEF. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04687111.

NT-proBNP/BNP ratio for prognostication in European Caucasian patients enrolled in a heart failure prevention programme.

AIMS: Guidelines support the role of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) for risk stratification of patients in programmes to prevent heart failure (HF). Although biologically formed in a 1:1 ratio, the ratio of NT-proBNP to BNP exhibits wide inter-individual variability. A report on an Asian population suggests that molar NT-proBNP/BNP ratio is associated with incident HF. This study aims to determine whether routine, simultaneous evaluation of both BNP and NT-proBNP is warranted in a European, Caucasian population. METHODS AND RESULTS: We determined BNP and NT-proBNP levels for 782 Stage A/B HF patients in the STOP-HF programme. The clinical, echocardiographic, and biochemical associates of molar NT-proBNP/BNP ratio were analysed. The primary endpoint was the adjusted association of baseline molar NT-proBNP/BNP ratio with new-onset HF and/or progression of left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). We estimated the C-statistic, integrated discrimination improvement, and the category-free net reclassification improvement metric for the addition of molar NT-proBNP/BNP ratio to adjusted models. The median age was 66.6 years [interquartile range (IQR) 59.5-73.1], 371 (47.4%) were female, and median molar NT-proBNP/BNP ratio was 1.91 (IQR 1.37-2.93). Estimated glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, left ventricular mass index, and heart rate were associated with NT-proBNP/BNP ratio in a linear regression model (all P < 0.05). Over a median follow-up period of 5 years (IQR 3.4-6.8), 247 (31.5%) patients developed HF or progression of LVD. Log-transformed NT-proBNP/BNP ratio is inversely associated with HF and LVD risk when adjusted for age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, vascular disease, obesity, heart rate, number of years of follow-up, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and baseline NT-proBNP (odds ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.91; P = 0.008). However, molar NT-proBNP/BNP ratio did not increase the C-statistic (Δ -0.01) and net reclassification improvement (0.0035) for prediction of HF and LVD compared with NT-proBNP or BNP alone. Substitution of NT-proBNP for BNP in the multivariable model eliminated the association with HF and LVD risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterized, for the first time in a Caucasian Stage A/B HF population, the relationship between NT-proBNP/BNP ratio and biological factors and demonstrated an inverse relationship with the future development of HF and LVD. However, this study does not support routine simultaneous BNP and NT-proBNP measurement in HF prevention programmes amongst European, Caucasian patients.

Anaesthetic management of a parturient with hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) and pulmonary haemorrhage requiring urgent caesarean section.

A 25-year-old gravida 3 para 3 with a history of hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) and embolised pulmonary arteriovenous malformations (PAVMs) was admitted at 36 weeks gestation with haemoptysis, epistaxis and CT evidence of recent alveolar haemorrhage. An urgent caesarean section was planned. Both previous pregnancies had been delivered by elective lower segment caesarean section (LSCS) under subarachnoid block (SAB) at term. Preanaesthetic planning involved consultation with our tertiary maternity referral centre, the national HHT centre and our tertiary adult referral centre, which has interventional radiology and cardiothoracic capabilities. A whole spine MRI was carried out to rule out vascular malformation. Following multidisciplinary discussion, the decision was made to proceed with caesarean section in our hospital under SAB. Wide bore intravenous access was sited and blood product availability was ensured in case of acute pulmonary haemorrhage. The LSCS was uneventful. Postoperatively following discharge from the hospital, the patient experienced recurrent episodes of small volume haemoptysis, and had further PAVM embolisation in the national HHT centre. This report highlights the difficulties in managing complex parturients in a non-tertiary referral centre and underlines the importance of communication and multidisciplinary team discussion to determine the most appropriate management.

Sacubitril-Valsartan in a routine community population: attention to volume status critical to achieving target dose.

AIMS: In the PARADIGM-heart failure trial, sacubitril-valsartan demonstrated a reduction in heart failure admissions and reduced all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Although real world data have shown similar benefits regarding efficacy and safety, there has been difficulty in achieving the target dose (TD). The factors preventing the achievement of TD remains unclear. This study assesses the tolerability, ability to achieve, and factors linked to attaining TD in a routine clinical population. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a retrospective single-centre review of patients switched from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers to sacubitril-valsartan between May 2016 and August 2018. Baseline and follow-up clinical characteristics and biomarker profiles were collected. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to analyse predictors of achieving TD. Clinical response to sacubitril-valsartan was defined as a reduction in N terminal pro BNP of ≥30%, or an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥5% compared with baseline values. To date, a total of 322 patients (75% male patients) have been switched to sacubitril-valsartan. Those still in the titration phase were excluded (n = 25). Sacubitril-valsartan was not tolerated in 40 patients (12.4%). Those intolerant were older (73.4 years [68.3, 80.6] vs. 69.1 years [61.2, 76]; P = 0.003) and had worse renal function with estimated glomerular filtration rate (53.5 mL/min/1.72 m2 [36.8, 60.2] vs 60 mL/min/1.72 m2 [47, 77]; P ≤ 0.001). Of the remaining 257 patients, TD (97/103 mg BD) was achieved in 194 patients (75.5%), while 37 patients (11.4%) were maintained on 49/51 mg BD and 26 patients (8.1%) remained on 24/26 mg BD. Symptomatic hypotension (74.6%) was the main impediment to attaining TD, followed by renal deterioration (12.7%), and to a lesser extent hyperkalaemia and gastrointestinal symptoms (4.8% each). Diuretic dose decrease was achieved in 37.2% of patients, and this was the strongest independent predictor of achieving TD (odds ratio = 2.1; 95% confidence interval [1.16, 3.8]; P = 0.014). Responder status by N terminal pro BNP criterion was observed in 99 of 214 patients (46.3%) while 70 of 142 (49.3%) attained the left ventricular ejection fraction response status. Achieving this response was independently linked to achieving TD. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan was well tolerated. Achievement of TD was possible in the majority of the cohort and was linked to response metrics. Reduction in diuretic was required in a large percentage of the population and was the strongest predictor of attaining TD. Therefore, careful clinical attention to volume status assessment is essential to maximising the benefits of sacubitril-valsartan.

Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients without heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Early intervention for those with high cardiovascular risk is crucial in improving patient outcomes. Traditional prevention strategies for CVD have focused on conventional risk factors, such as overweight, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, and hypertension, which may reflect the potential for cardiovascular insult. Natriuretic peptides (NPs), including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), are well-established biomarkers for the detection and diagnostic evaluation of heart failure. They are of interest for CVD prevention because they are secreted by the heart as a protective response to cardiovascular stress, strain, and damage. Therefore, measuring NP levels in patients without heart failure may be valuable for risk stratification, to identify those at highest risk of CVD who would benefit most from intensive risk reduction measures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment for people with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: Searches of the following bibliographic databases were conducted up to 9 July 2019: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Three clinical trial registries were also searched in July 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials enrolling adults with one or more cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure, which compared NP-based screening and subsequent NP-guided treatment versus standard care in all settings (i.e. community, hospital). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data and to verify crucial study characteristics. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included two randomised controlled trials (three reports) with 1674 participants, with mean age between 64.1 and 67.8 years. Follow-up ranged from 2 years to mean 4.3 years.For primary outcome measures, effect estimates from a single study showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on cardiovascular mortality in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.17; 1 study; 300 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated that in comparison to standard care, NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.68; 2 studies; 1674 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 163 per 1000 in the control group and 85 (95% CI 65 to 111) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group.When secondary outcome measures were evaluated, evidence from a pooled analysis showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.35; 2 studies; 1354 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis indicates that NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92; 2 studies; 1354 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 601 per 1000 in the control group and 499 (95% CI 457 to 553) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group. The effect estimate from a single study indicates that NP-guided treatment reduced the risk of ventricular dysfunction (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; 1374 participants; high-quality evidence). The risk in this study's control group was 87 per 1000, compared with 53 (95% CI 36 to 79) per 1000 with NP-guided treatment. Results from the same study show that NP-guided treatment does not affect change in NP level at the end of follow-up, relative to standard care (MD -4.06 pg/mL, 95% CI -15.07 to 6.95; 1 study; 1374 participants; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that NP-guided treatment is likely to reduce ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalisation for patients who have cardiovascular risk factors and who do not have heart failure. Effects on mortality and natriuretic peptide levels are less certain. Neither of the included studies were powered to evaluate mortality. Available evidence shows uncertainty regarding the effects of NP-guided treatment on both cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality; very low event numbers resulted in a high degree of imprecision in these effect estimates. Evidence also shows that NP-guided treatment may not affect NP level at the end of follow-up.As both trials included in our review were pragmatic studies, non-blinding of patients and practices may have biased results towards a finding of equivalence. Further studies with more adequately powered sample sizes and longer duration of follow-up are required to evaluate the effect of NP-guided treatment on mortality. As two trials are ongoing, one of which is a large multi-centre trial, it is hoped that future iterations of this review will benefit from larger sample sizes across a wider geographical area.

Feasibility of Antimicrobial Stewardship (AMS) in Critical Care Settings: A Multidisciplinary Approach Strategy.

Antimicrobial resistance is escalating and triggers clinical decision-making challenges when treating infections in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU). Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) may help combat this problem, but it can be difficult to implement in critical care settings. The implementation of multidisciplinary AMS in ICUs could be more challenging than what is currently suggested in the literature. Our main goal was to analyze the reduction in duration of treatment (DOT) for the most commonly used antibacterial and antifungal agents during the first six months of 2014, and during the same period two years later (2016). A total of 426 and 424 patient encounters, respectively, were documented and collected from the intensive care unit's electronic patient record system. Daily multidisciplinary ward rounds were conducted for approximately 30⁻40 min, with the goal of optimizing antimicrobial therapy in order to analyze the feasibility of implementing AMS. The only antimicrobial agent which showed a significant reduction in the number of prescriptions and in the duration of treatment during the second audit was vancomycin, while linezolid showed an increase in the number of prescriptions with no significant prolongation of the duration of treatment. A trend of reduction was also seen in the DOT for co-amoxiclavulanate and in the number of prescriptions of anidulafungin without any corresponding increases being observed for other broad-spectrum anti-infective agents (p-values of 0.07 and 0.05, respectively).