Risk stratification for worsening renal function and renal decline in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction after sacubitril/valsartan treatment.

BACKGROUND: In the real-world setting, data regarding renal decline following sacubitril/valsartan treatment are lacking. This study aimed to develop a scoring system to predict renal outcome in sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients. METHODS: Between 2017 and 2018, a total of 1505 heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) undergoing sacubitril/valsartan treatment were consecutively enrolled from 10 hospitals to serve as the derivation cohort. Another 1620 HFrEF patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan were included as the validation cohort. Worsening renal function (WRF) was defined as a serum creatinine increase of >0.3 mg/dL and/or >25 % at 8 months of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. The derivation cohort was used to identify independent predictive factors for WRF through multivariate analysis, which were then used to develop the risk score system. RESULTS: Among the 3125 HFrEF patients, 689 (22.0 %) patients had WRF at 8 months following sacubitril/valsartan treatment. In the derivation cohort, six prognostic factors (age, functional class, history of peripheral arterial disease, diabetes mellitus, gout or hyperuricemia, and serum albumin level) were independently associated with WRF, and were combined into a risk predicting score. This score showed accurate discrimination in the derivation and validation cohorts (Harrell's concordance indexes 0.74 and 0.71, 95 % confidence intervals 0.71-0.78 and 0.69-0.74, respectively). Patients with a higher risk score experienced a more rapid decline in renal function, poorer clinical outcomes, and a higher rate of discontinuation of sacubitril/valsartan treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study developed a score for WRF after sacubitril/valsartan treatment, which may assist clinicians with risk stratification and therapeutic decision-making.

Effects of Ivabradine on Patients with Depressed Left Ventricular Function after Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Background: The potential synergistic effect of ivabradine and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure (HF) patients has rarely been studied. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits of ivabradine in patients with left ventricular dysfunction following CRT implantation. Methods: Two hundred and thirty-one patients receiving CRT were consecutively enrolled between January 2014 and December 2018 from two HF centers. A total of 123 patients had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% and resting sinus heart rate (HR) ≥ 75 bpm after six months of CRT implantation. Among these patients, 45 were treated with ivabradine (Group 1), and 78 did not receive ivabradine treatment (Group 2). Results: Baseline characteristics and prescription rates of HF medications other than ivabradine were similar between the two groups. In Group 1, the mean HR decreased from 82.2 ± 11.4 bpm to 76.3 ± 10.5 bpm (p = 0.012), and the mean LVEF increased from 29.9 ± 6.5% to 38.8 ± 12.4% (p < 0.001). Atrial pacing percentage, biventricular pacing percentage, and burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) were not significantly different between the two groups during the study period. The patients' daily physical activity increased significantly in Group 1 compared to Group 2 (Δ daily activity 0.4 ± 0.7 hours/day vs. -0.1 ± 7.2 hours/day, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Ivabradine could effectively reduce HR and improve physical activity. It was safe to use and did not increase AF burden or affect biventricular pacing percentage in CRT recipients.

Clinical impacts of scar reduction on gated myocardial perfusion SPECT after cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: It had not been reported that myocardial scar shown on gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (GMPS) might reduce after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). In this study, we aim to investigate the clinical impact and characteristic of scar reduction (SR) after CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-one heart failure patients following standard indication for CRT received twice GMPS as pre- and post-CRT evaluations. The patients with an absolute reduction of scar ≥ 10% after CRT were classified as the SR group while the rest were classified as the non-SR group. The SR group (N = 22, 36%) showed more improvement on LV function (∆LVEF: 18.1 ± 12.4 vs 9.4 ± 9.9 %, P = 0.007, ∆ESV: - 91.6 ± 52.6 vs - 38.1 ± 46.5 mL, P < 0.001) and dyssynchrony (ΔPSD: - 26.19 ± 18.42 vs - 5.8 ± 23.0°, P < 0.001, Δ BW: - 128.7 ± 82.8 vs - 25.2 ± 109.0°, P < 0.001) than non-SR group (N = 39, 64%). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed baseline QRSd (95% CI 1.019-1.100, P = 0.006) and pre-CRT Reduced Wall Thickening (RWT) (95% CI 1.016-1.173, P = 0.028) were independent predictors for the development of SR. CONCLUSION: More than one third of patients showed SR after CRT who had more post-CRT improvement on LV function and dyssynchrony than those without SR. Wider QRSd and higher RWT before CRT were related to the development of SR after CRT.