Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan Combined with Dapagliflozin on Long-Term Cardiac Mortality in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Angiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 000331972110473
Author(s):  
Umut Karabulut ◽  
Kudret Keskin ◽  
Dilay Karabulut ◽  
Ece Yiğit ◽  
Zerrin Yiğit
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Cardiac Mortality ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Neprilysin Inhibitor

The angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor dapagliflozin have been shown to reduce rehospitalization and cardiac mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We aimed to compare the long-term cardiac and all-cause mortality of ARNI and dapagliflozin combination therapy against ARNI monotherapy in patients with HFrEF. This retrospective study involved 244 patients with HF with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II–IV symptoms and ejection fraction ≤40%. The patients were divided into 2 groups: ARNI monotherapy and ARNI+dapagliflozin. Median follow-up was 2.5 (.16–3.72) years. One hundred and seventy-five (71.7%) patients were male, and the mean age was 65.9 (SD, 10.2) years. Long-term cardiac mortality rates were significantly lower in the ARNI+dapagliflozin group (7.4%) than in the ARNI monotherapy group (19.5%) ( P = .01). Dapagliflozin [Hazard Ratio (HR) [95% Confidence Interval (CI)] = .29 [.10–.77]; P = .014] and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [HR (95% CI) = .89 (.85–.93); P < .001] were found to be independent predictors of cardiac mortality. Our study showed a significant reduction in cardiac mortality with ARNI and dapagliflozin combination therapy compared with ARNI monotherapy.

Current evidence of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 227-236
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abumayyaleh ◽  
Ibrahim El-Battrawy ◽  
Michael Behnes ◽  
Martin Borggrefe ◽  
Ibrahim Akin
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Regulatory Affairs ◽  
Neprilysin Inhibitor ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor

Heart failure (HF) is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission in western countries. The measurement of the left ventricular ejection fraction is essential for the classification of HF and deciding on HF treatment. The treatment of HF has been improved in both diagnostic and therapeutic fields over the past two decades. The angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor decreased the cardiovascular mortality in patients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) improves the imbalance between the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and natriuretic peptide systems. We present the clinical efficacy, real-world experience, safety and tolerability, the relevance of etiology of cardiomyopathy, and gender differences and regulatory affairs of LCZ696 in the treatment of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction.

scholarly journals Clinical features and long-term prognosis of patients with congestive heart failure taking tolvaptan: a comparison of patients with preserved and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiki Seki ◽  
Yoshiaki Kubota ◽  
Junya Matsuda ◽  
Yukichi Tokita ◽  
Yu-ki Iwasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Long Term Prognosis

AbstractFew studies have investigated the clinical benefit of the long-term use of tolvaptan (TLV) for heart failure (HF). This study evaluated the long-term prognosis of patients administered TLV for > 1 year among patients who had HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and those who had HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Overall, 591 consecutive patients were admitted to our hospital and administered TLV for HF between 2011 and 2018. We retrospectively enrolled 147 patients who were administered TLV for > 1 year. We divided them into the HFpEF group (n = 77, 52.4%) and the HFrEF group (n = 70; 47.6%). Their clinical backgrounds and long-term prognosis were examined. Compared with the patients in the HFrEF group, the patients in the HFpEF group were significantly older and included more women. Moreover, the HFpEF group showed significantly lower all-cause mortality (38.6% vs. 24.7%; log-rank, P = 0.014) and cardiovascular mortality during the average 2.7-year follow-up. Univariate analysis revealed that all-cause mortality was correlated with male sex, HFpEF, and changes in serum creatinine levels from baseline. Multivariate analysis revealed that HFpEF was an independent influencing factor for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.23–0.86; P = 0.017). Long-term administration of TLV may be more beneficial for HFpEF than for HFrEF.

Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction – A Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 90-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Otto A Smiseth ◽  
Anders Opdahl ◽  
Espen Boe ◽  
Helge Skulstad
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Diastolic Heart Failure ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Filling Pressure ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Objective Evidence

Heart failure with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HF-PEF), sometimes named diastolic heart failure, is a common condition most frequently seen in the elderly and is associated with arterial hypertension and left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Symptoms are attributed to a stiff left ventricle with compensatory elevation of filling pressure and reduced ability to increase stroke volume by the Frank-Starling mechanism. LV interaction with stiff arteries aggravates these problems. Prognosis is almost as severe as for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF), in part reflecting co-morbidities. Before the diagnosis of HF-PEF is made, non-cardiac etiologies must be excluded. Due to the non-specific nature of heart failure symptoms, it is essential to search for objective evidence of diastolic dysfunction which, in the absence of invasive data, is done by echocardiography and demonstration of signs of elevated LV filling pressure, impaired LV relaxation, or increased LV diastolic stiffness. Antihypertensive treatment can effectively prevent HF-PEF. Treatment of HF-PEF is symptomatic, with similar drugs as in HF-REF.

scholarly journals Long-Term clinical outcomes of subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a single center experience

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Ben Kilani ◽  
P Jacon ◽  
A Carabelli ◽  
S Venier ◽  
P Defaye
Keyword(s):  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardioverter Defibrillator ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): P. JACON consultant: Boston Scientific France Introduction The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the most effective therapy for prevention of sudden cardiac death in high-risk patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has been considered as a comparable and relatively safer alternative to transvenous ICD in patients (pts) without pacing indication. Purpose Our aim was to assess the clinical "real-life" outcomes of S-ICD in patients with HFrEF and primary or secondary prevention, over a long-term follow-up (FU) period after S-ICD implantation. Methods All pts with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) implanted with a S-ICD and a FU above 6 months were included in a cross-sectional monocentric study. Pts were followed by remote monitoring. Results 88 pts were included (52 ± 12.8 years old, male 87.5%). Indications were: primary 92% and secondary 8% prevention  (ischemic cardiopathy 46%; dilated 46%; hypertrophic 5%; congenital 2%; valvular 1%). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 27%. 9 pts had a previous transvenous ICD implanted, but required revision because of infection or lead defects. The mean FU period was 33 ± 18 months with a mortality rate of 10% (S-ICD-related death secondary to inappropriate (inap) shocks for one patient). 5 pts underwent S-ICD system extraction after a mean FU period of 30 ± 21 months. Reasons were infectious complication (1 pt), pacing indication (2 pts) and S-ICD lead dysfunction (2 pts). Extraction after heart transplant was performed in 4 pts. During FU, 18 pts (20.5%) experienced at least one therapy: 8 pts (9%) with appropriate (ap) (3.3% per year) and 11 pts (12%) with inap shocks (4.36% per year). A total number of 24 ap shocks have been observed (3 ± 4 ap shocks per patient, several shocks for 3 pts), the first shock occurred after a mean FU period of 24 ± 14 months. 2 pts were referred to VT ablation and no recurrence of events was observed after medical therapy modification for the other pts. For the 11 pts with inap shocks, time to the first event was 19 ± 20 months. Reasons were: supraventricular arrhythmias (18%), T wave (36%) and noise (54%) oversensing. There was 1.8 ± 1.6 shock per patient with several shocks for 4 pts. Among pts with inap shocks, 2 pts required S-ICD system extraction, 1 pt died, while reprogramming and medical therapy options were efficient in other pts. Conclusion In pts with HFrEF at high risk of sudden cardiac death, S-ICD has proven to be effective in treating ventricular arrhythmias. However, more investigations must be conducted to explain the real-life high rate of inappropriate therapies. Abstract Figure. Survival-free from therapies curve

scholarly journals Prognostic value of atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure and different left ventricular ejection fraction: results of the multicenter RIF-CHF register

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 4200
Author(s):  
I. V. Zhirov ◽  
N. V. Safronova ◽  
Yu. F. Osmolovskaya ◽  
S. N. Тereschenko
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Increased Risk

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are the most common cardiovascular conditions in clinical practice and frequently coexist. The number of patients with HF and AF is increasing every year.Aim. To analyze the effect of clinical course and management of HF and AF on the outcomes.Material and methods. The data of 1,003 patients from the first Russian register of patients with HF and AF (RIF-CHF) were analyzed. The endpoints included hospitalization due to decompensated HF, cardiovascular mortality, thromboembolic events, and major bleeding. Predictors of unfavorable outcomes were analyzed separately for patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (AF+HFpEF), mid-range ejection fraction (AF+HFmrEF), and reduced ejection fraction (AF+HFrEF).Results. Among all patients with HF, 39% had HFpEF, 15% — HFmrEF, and 46% — HFrEF. A total of 57,2% of patients were rehospitalized due to decompensated HF within one year. Hospitalization risk was the highest for HFmrEF patients (66%, p=0,017). Reduced ejection fraction was associated with the increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (15,5% vs 5,4% in other groups, p<0,001) but not ischemic stroke (2,4% vs 3%, p=0,776). Patients with HFpEF had lower risk to achieve the composite endpoint (stroke+MI+cardiovascular death) as compared to patients with HFmrEF and HFrEF (12,7% vs 22% and 25,5%, p<0,001). Regression logistic analysis revealed that factors such as demographic characteristics, disease severity, and selected therapy had different effects on the risk of unfavorable outcomes depending on ejection fraction group.Conclusion. Each group of patients with different ejection fractions is characterized by its own pattern of factors associated with unfavorable outcomes. The demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with mid-range ejection fraction demonstrate that these patients need to be studied as a separate cohort.

Comparison of the prognosis and outcome of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan according to age

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Abumayyaleh ◽  
Ibrahim El-Battrawy ◽  
Marvin Kummer ◽  
Christina Pilsinger ◽  
Katherine Sattler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Chronic Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Impact

The treatment with sacubitril/valsartan in patients suffering from chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction increases left ventricular ejection fraction and decreases the risk of sudden cardiac death. We conducted a retrospective analysis regarding the impact of age differences on the treatment outcome of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Patients were defined as adults if ≤65 years (n = 51) and older if >65 years of age (n = 76). The incidence of ventricular arrhythmias at 1-year follow-up was comparable in both groups (30.8 vs 26.5%; p = 0.71). The mortality rate in adult patients is significantly lower as compared with older patients (2 vs 14.5%; log-rank = 0.04). Older patients may suffer remarkably more side effects than adult patients (21.1 vs 11.8%; p = 0.03).

scholarly journals Sacubitril/Valsartan Improves Autonomic Function and Cardiopulmonary Parameters in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Giallauria ◽  
Giuseppe Vitale ◽  
Mario Pacileo ◽  
Anna Di Lorenzo ◽  
Alessandro Oliviero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Autonomic Function ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Exercise Stress ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Peak Exercise ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction

Background: Heart rate recovery (HRR) is a marker of vagal tone, which is a powerful predictor of mortality in patients with cardiovascular disease. Sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) is a treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), which impressively impacts cardiovascular outcome. This study aims at evaluating the effects of S/V on HRR and its correlation with cardiopulmonary indexes in HFrEF patients. Methods: Patients with HFrEF admitted to outpatients’ services were screened out for study inclusion. S/V was administered according to guidelines. Up-titration was performed every 4 weeks when tolerated. All patients underwent laboratory measurements, Doppler-echocardiography, and cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing (CPET) at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. Results: Study population consisted of 134 HFrEF patients (87% male, mean age 57.9 ± 9.6 years). At 12-month follow-up, significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (from 28% ± 5.8% to 31.8% ± 7.3%, p < 0.0001), peak exercise oxygen consumption (VO2peak) (from 15.3 ± 3.7 to 17.8 ± 4.2 mL/kg/min, p < 0.0001), the slope of increase in ventilation over carbon dioxide output (VE/VCO2 slope )(from 33.4 ± 6.2 to 30.3 ± 6.5, p < 0.0001), and HRR (from 11.4 ± 9.5 to 17.4 ± 15.1 bpm, p = 0.004) was observed. Changes in HRR were significantly correlated to changes in VE/VCO2slope (r = −0.330; p = 0.003). After adjusting for potential confounding factors, multivariate analysis showed that changes in HRR were significantly associated to changes in VE/VCO2slope (Beta (B) = −0.975, standard error (SE) = 0.364, standardized Beta coefficient (Bstd) = −0.304, p = 0.009). S/V showed significant reduction in exercise oscillatory ventilation (EOV) detection at CPET (28 EOV detected at baseline CPET vs. 9 EOV detected at 12-month follow-up, p < 0.001). HRR at baseline CPET was a significant predictor of EOV at 12-month follow-up (B = −2.065, SE = 0.354, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In HFrEF patients, S/V therapy improves autonomic function, functional capacity, and ventilation. Whether these findings might translate into beneficial effects on prognosis and outcome remains to be elucidated.

scholarly journals Real-world treatment switching to sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A cohort study

Open Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e001305
Author(s):  
Sashiananthan Ganesananthan ◽  
Nisar Shah ◽  
Parin Shah ◽  
Hossam Elsayed ◽  
Julie Phillips ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Ejection Fraction ◽  
Real World ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Left Ventricular Ejection ◽  
Ventricular Ejection Fraction ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
Treatment Switching

BackgroundSacubitril/valsartan is an effective treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) based on clinical trial data. However, little is known about its use or impact in real-world practice. The aim of this study was to describe our routine clinical experience of switching otherwise optimally treated patients with HFrEF to sacubitril/valsartan with respect to patient outcomes such as quality of life (QoL) and echocardiographic variables.Methods and resultsFrom June 2017 to May 2019, 80 consecutive stable patients with HFrEF on established and maximally tolerated guideline-directed HF therapies were initiated on sacubitril/valsartan with bimonthly uptitration. Clinical assessment, biochemistry, echocardiography and QoL were compared pretreatment and post-treatment switching. We were able to successfully switch 89% of patients from renin–angiotensin axis inhibitors to sacubitril/valsartan (71 of 80 patients). After 3 months of switch therapy, we observed clinically significant and incremental improvements in blood pressure (systolic blood pressure 123 vs 112 mm Hg, p<0.001; diastolic blood pressure 72 vs 68 mm Hg, p=0.004), New York Heart Association functional classification score (2.3 vs 1.9, p<0.001), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score (46 vs 38, p=0.016), left ventricular ejection fraction (26% vs 33%, p<0.001) and left ventricular end systolic diameter (5.2 vs 4.9 cm, p=0.013) compared with baseline. There were no significant changes in renal function or serum potassium.ConclusionThis study provides real-world clinical practice data demonstrating incremental improvements in functional and echocardiographic outcomes in optimally treated patients with HFrEF switched to sacubitril/valsartan. The data provide evidence beyond that observed in clinical trial settings of the potential benefits of sacubitril/valsartan when used as part of a multidisciplinary heart failure programme.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document