Protein-Losing Enteropathy in the Failing Fontan: Treatment With Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor.

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor is the standard of care for systolic heart failure in adults. In addition, its use in adults with failing systemic right ventricles and diastolic heart failure is promising. This study reports our experience with this drug for protein-losing enteropathy secondary to Fontan failure in pediatrics.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan and Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction Combined With Moderate-to-Severe Chronic Kidney Disease.

Background and Objectives: The efficacy and safety of a lower target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor [ARNI]) for treating heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in Chinese patients with moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) remain unknown. We performed a retrospective study to compare the efficacy of ARNI with that of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with HFrEF and moderate-to-severe CKD. Methods: This retrospective study included 129 patients. An inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed to compare the baseline characteristics and outcomes between the 2 groups. The incidence of death due to cardiovascular disease, rehospitalization due to heart failure after treatment, and improvement in cardiac function symptoms (New York Heart Association [NYHA]) were assessed after 12 months. Improvements of ejection fraction (EF), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level, left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) were compared. Results: Compared with the ACEI/ARB group, the ARNI group, with 90.77% (59/65) in the lower target dose group, showed a lower rate of death due to cardiovascular disease (6.6% vs 0.9% after IPTW) and a lower incidence of rehospitalization (46.5% vs 30.4% after IPTW). NYHA class, estimated glomerular filtration rate, EF, NT-ProBNP levels, LVEDD, and LVESD improved in the ARNI group. None of the patients withdrew from treatment because of adverse drug reactions. Conclusion: Our study showed that ARNI resulted in a greater improvement in heart failure than ACEIs/ARBs in patients with HFrEF and moderate-to-severe CKD.

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan on aging-related cardiac dysfunction.

Heart failure (HF) remains a huge medical burden worldwide, with aging representing a major risk factor. Here, we report the effects of sacubitril/valsartan, an approved drug for HF with reduced EF, in an experimental model of aging-related HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Eighteen-month-old female Fisher 344 rats were treated for 12 weeks with sacubitril/valsartan (60 mg/kg/day) or with valsartan (30 mg/kg/day). Three-month-old rats were used as control. No differential action of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan alone, either positive or negative, was observed. The positive effects of both sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan on cardiac hypertrophy was evidenced by a significant reduction of wall thickness and myocyte cross-sectional area. Contrarily, myocardial fibrosis in aging heart was not reduced by any treatment. Doppler echocardiography and left ventricular catheterization evidenced diastolic dysfunction in untreated and treated old rats. In aging rats, both classical and non-classical renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) were modulated. In particular, with respect to untreated animals, both sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan showed a partial restoration of cardioprotective non-classical RAAS. In conclusion, this study evidenced the favorable effects, by both treatments, on age-related cardiac hypertrophy. The attenuation of cardiomyocyte size and hypertrophic response may be linked to a shift towards cardioprotective RAAS signaling. However, diastolic dysfunction and cardiac fibrosis persisted despite of treatment and were accompanied by myocardial inflammation, endothelial activation, and oxidative stress.

Sacubitril/valsartan alleviates sepsis-induced myocardial injury in rats via dual angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibition and modulation of inflammasome/caspase 1/IL1ß pathway.

Sepsis is a life-threatening situation that ultimately affects cardiac function, leading to cardiomyopathy and myocardial injury as a result of uncontrolled response to infection.Till now, there is limited effective treatment to rescue those cases. Thus, novel therapeutic strategies should be identified to achieve better outcomes for septic patients. For the first time, we aimed to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) on sepsis-induced cardiac injury. Wistar male adult albino rats were randomly divided into four groups; Group I received the vehicle; Group II was given the vehicle plus 1 ml saline containing viable Escherichia. coli (E. coli) (2.1x109 cfu) by intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection on the 1st and 2nd days; Group III received i.p. injection as group II plus oral administration of Sac/Val (30 mg/kg/day) and Nitro- ω-L-arginine (L-NNA) (25 mg/kg/day) for 7 days. Group IV was administered i.p. injection as group II plus oral administration of Sac/Val (30 mg/kg/day) for 7 days. Our data (n=10) revealed successful induction of sepsis as it showed a significant increase in the measured cardiac enzymes, malondialdehyde (MDA), angiotensin II (Ang II), neprilysin, inflammasome, caspase 1, interleukin (IL)1ß, and caspase 3 with cardiac histopathological changes, but there was a significant decrease in the antioxidants and blood pressure (BP). Co-administration of Sac/Val could obviously improve these changes. Interestingly, L-NNA given group showed a decrease in the cardioprotective effect of Sac/Val. Sac/Val could ameliorate sepsis induced cardiac damage via inhibition of Ang II and neprilysin with anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and anti-apoptotic properties.

Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic overlap in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: Cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and response to sacubitril/valsartan in PARAGON-HF.

AIMS: Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) multimorbidity is prevalent among individuals with heart failure (HF), but whether cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan vary in relation to CKM status is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this PARAGON-HF post-hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of CKM multimorbidity (atherosclerotic cardiovascular [CV] disease, chronic kidney disease, and type 2 diabetes) on cardiac structure and function, clinical outcomes, and treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan versus valsartan. The primary outcome was a composite of total HF hospitalizations and CV death. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome and a composite kidney outcome (sustained estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction of ≥50%, end-stage kidney disease, or kidney-related death). At baseline, 35.2% had one CKM condition, 33.3% had two, 15.9% had three, and only 15.6% had HF alone. CKM multimorbidity was associated with higher septal and posterior wall thickness, lower global longitudinal strain, higher E/e', and worse right ventricular function. Total HF hospitalizations or CV death increased with greater CKM multimorbidity, with the highest relative risk observed with three CKM conditions (rate ratio 3.06, 95% confidence interval 2.33-4.03), compared with HF alone. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of the number of CKM conditions for the primary endpoint (pinteraction = 0.75), CV death (pinteraction = 0.82), total HF hospitalizations (pinteraction = 0.67), and the composite kidney endpoint (pinteraction = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic multimorbidity was common in PARAGON-HF and associated with adverse changes in cardiac structure and function and with a stepwise increase in risk of clinical outcomes. Treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan were consistent irrespective of CKM burden. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01920711.

Effect of sacubitril-valsartan on left ventricular remodeling and NT-proBNP in patients with heart failure complicated with hypertension and reduced ejection fraction.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect of sacubitril-valsartan on left ventricular remodeling and NT-proBNP in heart failure patients with hypertension and reduced ejection fraction. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 112 heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and concomitant hypertension who were treated in Baoji Central Hospital from May 2019 to October 2021. Standard heart failure treatment was applied in both groups. Besides, the observation group (n=60) was additionally treated with sacubitril/valsartan (initial dose of 50 mg twice daily, adjusted every 2-4 weeks by doubling the dose to a maximum of 200 mg twice daily based on the patients' actual conditions and tolerance), and the control group (n=52) received valsartan (80 mg once daily). The treatment duration for both groups was 6 months. Therapeutic efficacy, blood pressure, echocardiographic parameters, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and left ventricular remodeling before and after treatment were recorded and compared between the two groups, as well as the adverse drug reactions during the treatment and life quality after treatment. Finally, multifactor regression analysis was performed to screen the independent risk factors affecting patient prognosis. RESULTS: Compared with the CG, the overall response rate in the OG was evidently higher (P < 0.001); the improvements in blood pressure, NT-proBNP, interventricular septal thickness (IVST), left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWT) and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) were more significant in the OG (all P < 0.001). Both groups showed marked improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and (left ventricular end-systolic diameter) LVESD compared to baseline, with more significant improvement in the OG compared with the CG (all P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups. However, post-treatment quality of life was much higher in the OG compared to the CG (P < 0.001). Comorbid diabetes and treatment regimen were identified as independent risk factors affecting patient prognosis. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril-valsartan can effectively improve blood pressure, cardiac function and ventricular remodeling in patients with HFrEF and hypertension without increasing adverse reactions. It is highly safe and worthy of clinical promotion.

Real-life effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in older Belgians with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction and most severe symptoms.

We assessed the real-world effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with an emphasis on those with older age (≥ 75 years) or with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV, for whom greater uncertainty existed regarding clinical outcomes. We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on patient-level linkage of electronic healthcare datasets. Data from all adults with HFrEF in Belgium receiving a prescription for sacubitril/valsartan between 01-November-2016 and 31-December-2018 were collected, with a follow-up of > 6 years. The total study population comprised 5446 patients, older than the PARADIGM-HF trial participants, and with higher NYHA class (all P < 0.0001). NYHA class improved following sacubitril/valsartan initiation (P < 0.0001 baseline vs. reassessment). Most concomitant medications were reduced. Remarkably, the risk of hospitalization for a cardiovascular reason and for HF was reduced by > 26% in the overall cohort, and in subgroups of patients ≥ 75 years, with NYHA class III/IV (all P < 0.0001) or with NYHA class IV (P < 0.05), vs. baseline. All-cause mortality did not increase in real-world patients with NYHA class III/IV. The results support the long-term beneficial effects of sacubitril/valsartan in older patients and in those experiencing the most severe symptoms.

Effect of sacubitril-valsartan on left ventricular remodeling in patients with acute myocardial infarction after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Sacubitril-valsartan has been widely reported for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and improving left ventricular remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF). However, the effect of sacubitril-valsartan in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate whether sacubitril-valsartan could reverse left ventricular remodeling and reduce cardiovascular adverse events in AMI patients after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Materials and methods: Two researchers independently retrieved the relevant literature from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang database. The retrieval time was limited from inception to 1 June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the inclusion criteria were included and analyzed. Results: In total, 21 RCTs involving 2442 AMI patients who underwent PPCI for revascularization were included in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), sacubitril-valsartan treatment in AMI patients after PPCI significantly reduced left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (weighted mean difference (WMD) -3.11, 95%CI: -4.05∼-2.16, p < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (WMD -7.76, 95%CI: -12.24∼-3.27, p = 0.001), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (WMD -6.80, 95%CI: -9.45∼-4.15, p < 0.001) and left ventricular end-systolic dimension (LVESD) (WMD -2.53, 95%CI: -5.30-0.24, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis according to the dose of sacubitril-valsartan yielded a similar result. Meanwhile, PPCI patients using sacubitril-valsartan therapy showed lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.28-0.46, p < 0.001), myocardial reinfarction (OR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.30-0.98, p = 0.041) and HF (OR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.26-0.47, p < 0.001) without increasing the risk of renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, or symptomatic hypotension. At the same time, the change of LV ejection fraction (LVEF) (WMD 3.91, 95%CI: 3.41-4.41, p < 0.001), 6 min walk test (6MWT) (WMD 43.56, 95%CI: 29.37-57.76, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP level (WMD -130.27, 95%CI: -159.14∼-101.40, p < 0.001) were statistically significant. Conclusion: In conclusion, our meta-analysis indicates that compared with ACEI/ARB, sacubitril-valsartan may be superior to reverse left ventricular remodeling, improve cardiac function, and effectively reduce the risk of MACE, myocardial reinfarction, and HF in AMI patients after PPCI during follow-up without increasing the risk of adverse reactions including renal insufficiency, hyperkalemia, and symptomatic hypotension.

Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan vs Valsartan in De Novo vs Acute on Chronic HFpEF and HFmrEF.

Background: Decompensated heart failure (HF) can be categorized as de novo or worsening of chronic HF. In PARAGLIDE-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ARB Given following stabiLization In DEcompensated HFpEF), among patients with an ejection fraction >40% that stabilized after worsening HF, sacubitril/valsartan led to a significantly greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and was associated with clinical benefit compared to valsartan. Objectives: This prespecified analysis characterized patients with de novo vs worsening chronic HF in PARAGLIDE-HF and assessed the interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: Patients were classified as de novo (first diagnosis of HF) or chronic (known HF prior to the index event). Time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 was analyzed using an analysis of covariance model. A win ratio consisting of time to cardiovascular death, number and times of HF hospitalizations during follow-up, number and times of urgent HF visits during follow-up, and time-averaged proportional change in NT-proBNP was assessed for each group. Results: Of the 466 participants, 153 (33%) had de novo HF and 313 (67%) had chronic HF. De novo patients had lower rates of atrial fibrillation/flutter and lower creatinine. There was a nonsignificant reduction in NT-proBNP with sacubitril/valsartan vs valsartan for de novo (0.82; 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) and chronic HF (0.88; 95% CI: 0.73-1.07), interaction P = 0.66. The win ratio was nominally in favor of sacubitril/valsartan for both de novo (1.12; 95% CI: 0.70-1.58) and chronic HF (1.24; 95% CI: 0.89-1.71). Conclusions: There is no interaction between HF chronicity and the effect of sacubitril-valsartan.

Treatment with Sacubitril/Valsartan Effectively Manages Hypertension and Ameliorates Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Hemodialysis Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the role of sacubitril/valsartan in managing hypertension and cardiac remodeling in patients undergoing hemodialysis. METHODS: Hemodialysis patients with stable blood pressure control were enrolled in the study. Sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed to replace previously used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker or other antihypertensive drugs. During a 6-month follow-up period, pre-dialysis blood pressure, routine biochemical markers, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels were measured. Volume status was assessed using bioelectrical impedance analysis. Endothelial damage was evaluated by measuring asymmetric dimethylarginine expression, while echocardiography and life quality assessed by Short Form-12 Health Survey were conducted at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS: The median daily dose of sacubitril/valsartan in 32 participants was 200 mg, and no obvious adverse reactions were reported. The defined daily dose of other antihypertensive drugs (baseline 2.00 ± 1.18, end point 1.46 ± 1.30, t = 3.216, p = 0.003) reduced significantly. After treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, left ventricular ejection fraction significantly increased from 64.81 ± 8.16% to 67.55 ± 5.85% (t = -4.022, p ≤ 0.001) and the thickness of posterior wall of the left ventricle reduced from 1.05 ± 0.14 cm to 1.00 ± 0.11 cm (t = 2.063, p = 0.048). The interventricular septal thickness (baseline 1.08 ± 0.16 cm, endpoint 1.02 ± 0.12 cm, t = 2.260, p = 0.031) remarkably reduced by the end of follow-up. The tricuspid regurgitation pressure gradient decreased from 28.47 ± 8.26 mm Hg at baseline to 23.79 ± 6.61 mm Hg (t = 2.531, p = 0.020) after treatment. CONCLUSION: Sacubitril/valsartan effectively manages hypertension in hemodialysis patients and may also independently improve left ventricular hypertrophy and systolic function, regardless of changes in the blood pressure or the volume load.

The role of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure: a meta-analysis and systematic analysis.

AIMS: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in abnormal renal function (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2) patients combined with heart failure based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. METHODS: The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from inception to December 2023. Dichotomous variables were described as event counts with the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) values. Continuous variables were expressed as mean standard deviation (SD) with 95% CIs. RESULTS: A total of 6 RCTs and 8 observational studies were included, involving 17335 eGFR below 60 ml/min/1.73m2 patients combined with heart failure. In terms of efficacy, we analyzed the incidence of cardiovascular events and found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization in chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5 patients with heart failure (OR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.54-0.78). Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the serum creatinine elevation (OR: 0.81, 95%CI: 0.68-0.95), the eGFR decline (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.73-0.95) and the development of end-stage renal disease in this population (OR:0.73, 95%CI:0.60-0.89). As for safety outcomes, we did not find that the rate of hyperkalemia (OR:1.31, 95%CI:0.79-2.17) and hypotension (OR:1.57, 95%CI:0.94-2.62) were increased in sacubitril/valsartan group among CKD stages 3-5 patients with heart failure. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis proves that sacubitril/valsartan has a favorable effect on cardiac function without obvious risk of adverse events in abnormal renal function patients combined with heart failure, indicating that sacubitril/valsartan has the potential to become perspective treatment for these patients.

Effects of sacubitril/valsartan on the functional capacity of real-world patients in Italy: the REAL.IT study on heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Background: Heart failure (HF) significantly affects the morbidity, mortality, and quality of life of patients. New therapeutic strategies aim to improve the functional capacity and quality of life of patients while controlling HF-related risks. Real-world data on both the functional and cardiopulmonary exercise capacities of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction upon sacubitril/valsartan use are lacking. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, called REAL.IT, was performed based on the data collected from the electronic medical records of nine specialized HF centers in Italy. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing was performed at baseline and after 12 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, monitoring carbon dioxide production (VCO2) and oxygen consumption (VO2). Results: The functional capacities of 170 patients were evaluated. The most common comorbidities were hypertension and diabetes (i.e., 53.5 and 32.4%, respectively). At follow-up, both the VO2 peak (from 15.1 ± 3.7 ml/kg/min at baseline to 17.6 ± 4.7 ml/kg/min at follow-up, p < 0.0001) and the predicted % VO2 peak (from 55.5 ± 14.1 to 65.5 ± 16.9, p < 0.0001) significantly increased from baseline. The VO2 at the anaerobic threshold (AT-VO2) increased from 11.5 ± 2.6 to 12.5 ± 3.3 ml/kg/min (p = 0.021), and the rate ratio between the oxygen uptake and the change in work (ΔVO2/Δwork slope) improved from 9.1 ± 1.5 to 9.9 ± 1.6 ml/min/W (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan improves the cardiopulmonary capacity of patients with HFrEF in daily clinical practice in Italy.

Sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of non-obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: An open label randomized controlled trial (SILICOFCM).

AIM: Sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduces mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but has limited application in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of sacubitril/valsartan on peak oxygen consumption (VO2) in patients with non-obstructive HCM. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a phase II, randomized, open-label multicentre study that enrolled adult patients with symptomatic non-obstructive HCM (New York Heart Association class I-III) who were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive sacubitril/valsartan (target dose 97/103 mg) or control for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was a change in peak VO2. Secondary endpoints included echocardiographic measures of cardiac structure and function, natriuretic peptides and other cardiac biomarkers, and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life. Between May 2018 and October 2021, 354 patients were screened for eligibility, 115 patients (mean age 58 years, 37% female) met the study inclusion criteria and were randomly assigned to sacubitril/valsartan (n = 79) or control (n = 36). At 16 weeks, there was no significant change in peak VO2 from baseline in the sacubitril/valsartan (15.3 [4.3] vs. 15.9 [4.3] ml/kg/min, p = 0.13) or control group (p = 0.47). No clinically significant changes were found in blood pressure, cardiac structure and function, plasma biomarkers, or quality of life. CONCLUSION: In patients with HCM, a 16-week treatment with sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated but had no effect on exercise capacity, cardiac structure, or function.

Sacubitril/valsartan and cardiovascular biomarkers among patients with recent COVID-19 infection: The PARACOR-19 randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: The PARACOR-19 randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to examine the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on markers of cardiac injury, inflammation, structure, and function among patients who have recovered from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. METHODS AND RESULTS: PARACOR-19 was a single-centre, double-blind RCT of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and a history of COVID-19 infection 4-16 weeks prior to enrolment. Patients were randomized to sacubitril/valsartan (titrated to the maximum dose of 97/103 mg twice daily) versus matching placebo. Co-primary endpoints were change from baseline to 12 weeks in high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) and soluble ST2 (sST2). Exploratory endpoints included change from baseline to 12 weeks in additional circulating biomarkers. Overall, 42 patients were randomized between August 2021 and March 2023 (n = 20 sacubitril/valsartan, n = 22 placebo). Median (25th-75th) time from COVID-19 diagnosis to enrolment was 67 (48-80) days. Median age was 67 (62-71) years, 48% were female, and 91% were White. Compared with placebo, sacubitril/valsartan did not have a significant effect on the co-primary endpoints of change from baseline in hs-TnT and sST2 (all p ≥ 0.29). In exploratory analyses, sacubitril/valsartan led to a 46% greater reduction in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 51% greater reduction in C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I (CITP). Permanent drug discontinuation occurred in four patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and three patients in the placebo group. There were no deaths and one patient was hospitalized in each group. CONCLUSION: In this pilot RCT of patients who recovered from acute COVID-19, sacubitril/valsartan did not lower hs-cTnT or sST2 compared with placebo. Exploratory analyses suggested potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac wall stress and collagen turnover as measured by NT-proBNP and CITP. Sacubitril/valsartan was well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04883528.

Effects of sacubitril-valsartan on remodelling, fibrosis and mitochondria in a murine model of isoproterenol-induced left ventricular dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to promote left ventricular (LV) reverse remodelling and improve outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). Its molecular and tissue effects have not been fully elucidated yet, due to the paucity of preclinical studies, mostly based on ischaemic models. We aimed to evaluate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan on LV remodelling, myocardial fibrosis and mitochondrial biology in a murine model of non-ischaemic LV dysfunction. METHODS: Adult transgenic male mice with cardiac-specific hyperaldosteronism (AS mice) received subcutaneous isoproterenol injections to induce LV systolic dysfunction. After 7 days, mice were randomized to a 2-week treatment with saline (ISO-AS n = 15), valsartan (ISO + V n = 12) or sacubitril/valsartan (ISO + S/V n = 12). Echocardiography was performed at baseline, at day 7, and after each of the 2 weeks of treatment. After sacrifice at day 21, histological and immunochemical assays were performed. A control group of AS mice was also obtained (Ctrl-AS n = 8). RESULTS: Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan, but not with valsartan, induced a significant improvement in LVEF (p = 0.009 vs ISO-AS) and fractional shortening (p = 0.032 vs ISO-AS) after 2- week treatment. In both ISO + V and ISO + S/V groups, a trend toward reduction of the cardiac collagen 1/3 expression ratio was detected. ISO + V and ISO + S/V groups showed a significant recovery of mitochondrial morphology and inner membrane function meant for oxidative phosphorylation. CONCLUSION: In a murine model of non-ischaemic HF, sacubitril/valsartan proved to have beneficial effects on LV systolic function, and on cardiac energetics, by improving mitochondrial activity.

Sacubitril/valsartan has an underestimated impact on the right ventricle in patients with sleep-disordered breathing, especially central sleep apnoea syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan has been demonstrated to significantly improve left ventricular performance and remodelling in patients with heart failure. However, its effects on the right ventricle in patients with chronic heart failure and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) have not been studied. AIM: To investigate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan treatment on right ventricular function in patients with SDB. METHODS: This was a subanalysis of an observational prospective multicentre study involving 101 patients. At inclusion, patients were evaluated by echocardiography and nocturnal ventilatory polygraphy, which allowed patients to be divided into three groups: "central-SDB"; "obstructive-SDB"; and "no-SDB". RESULTS: After 3 months of sacubitril/valsartan therapy, a positive impact on right ventricular function was observed. In the general population, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion increased by +1.32±4.74mm (P=0.024) and systolic pulmonary artery pressure decreased by -3.1±10.91mmHg (P=0.048). The central-SDB group experienced the greatest echocardiographic improvement, with a significant increase in tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion of +2.1±4.9mm (P=0.045) and a significant reduction in systolic pulmonary artery pressure of -8.4±9.7mmHg (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan improved right ventricular function in patients with heart failure and SDB after only 3 months of treatment. The greatest improvement in right ventricular function was observed in the central-SDB group.

Is Sacubitril/Valsartan a Superior Agent in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction? A Review of Randomized Comparative Trials.

Background: The PARADIGM HF trial showed sacubitril/valsartan (SV) to be superior to enalapril in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Since its publication, several other randomized trials have compared SV to either an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in HFrEF which showed conflicting results regarding mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life scoring. Objective: To review randomized comparative trials of SV to either ACEI or ARB in patients with HFrEF. Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were used to identify randomized comparative trials. The text terms sacubitril, angiotensin neprilysin, and LCZ696 were used for both searches. Meta-analysis, retrospective, adhoc, and cohort studies were excluded. Results: 1476 and 3983 citations were reviewed on PubMed and Embase, respectively. Of these, 11 randomized comparative trials to either ACEI or ARB were included for analysis. The mortality/quality of life benefits of SV over enalapril in the PARADIGM HF were not corroborated in any of the other trials. The effect of hospitalizations for heart failure was inconsistent among trials. Exercise tolerance was not improved with SV versus enalapril. Conclusion: The results of the PARADIGM HF trial have largely not been confirmed in subsequent randomized comparative trials.

Sacubitril-valsartan vs ACE/ARB in pediatric heart failure: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The first angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor on the market, sacubitril-valsartan, has shown marked improvements in death and hospitalization for heart failure among adults, and is now approved for use in pediatric heart failure. While the ongoing PANORAMA-HF trial is evaluating the effectiveness of sacubitril-valsartan for pediatric patients with a failing systemic left ventricle, the enrollment criteria do not include the majority of pediatric heart failure patients. Additional studies are needed. METHODS: Using the TriNetX database, we performed a propensity score matched, retrospective cohort study to assess the incidence of a composite of all-cause mortality or heart transplant within 1 year. The 519 patients who received sacubitril-valsartan were compared to 519 matched controls who received an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of the composite outcome with sacubitril-valsartan over an ACE/ARB (13.3% vs 13.2%, p = 0.95), or among the components of mortality (5.0% vs 5.8%, p = 0.58) or heart transplantation (8.7% vs 7.5%, p = 0.50). Patients who were receiving full goal-directed medical therapy (14.4% vs 16.0%, p = 0.55) also showed no difference in the composite outcome. We observed a significantly increased incidence of hypotension (10% vs 5.2%, p = 0.006) and a trend toward reduced number of hospitalizations per year (mean (SD) 1.3 (4.4) vs 2.0 (9.1), p = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril-valsartan is not associated with a decrease in the composite of all-cause mortality or heart transplantation within 1 year. Future studies should evaluate the possible reduction in hospitalizations and optimal dosing to minimize hypotension.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection Combined With Mild Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Optimal antihypertensive medication for chronic type B aortic dissection (AD) remains undecided. This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan to determine suitable antihypertensive drug combinations. METHODS: In this single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic Stanford type B AD and mild hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 100/200 mg or valsartan 80/160 mg. The primary endpoint was the reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) at week 8 in patients with sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan. Key secondary endpoints included changes in (i) mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP); (ii) pulse pressure (PP); and (iii) mean ambulatory blood pressure (BP) for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300073399. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients completed the study. Sacubitril/valsartan provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than valsartan at week 8 (between-treatment difference: -5.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval -5.8 to -4.5], P < 0.001). Reductions in msSBP, msDBP, and PP as well as the mean ambulatory BP for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime, were significantly greater in sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (all P < 0.001). No excessive episodes of AEs occurred in the sacubitril/valsartan group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced BP compared with baseline values. However, sacubitril/valsartan improved BP control to a greater extent than valsartan. It may offer a new treatment option for patients with mild hypertension and chronic type B AD.