Hung-Yu Chang1, Kuan-Chun Chen2, Man-Cai Fong3, An-Ning Feng1, Hao-Neng Fu4, Kuan-Chih Huang4, Eric Chong5, Wei-Hsian Yin6. 1. Heart Center, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Heart Center, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. Heart Center, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. Heart Center, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 5. Division of Cardiology, Farrer Park Hospital, Singapore. 6. Heart Center, Cheng Hsin General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Faculty of Medicine, School of Medicine, National Yang Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: adr@chgh.org.tw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Literature describing recovery of left ventricular (LV) function post sacubitril/valsartan treatment and the optimal management of heart failure (HF) patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan remain sparse. METHODS: We recruited 437 consecutive chronic HF patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%, who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan. All patients underwent routine echocardiographic measurement. RESULTS: During treatment period, recovery of LVEF to 50% or greater was observed in 77 (17.6%) patients. After multivariate analysis, recovery of LV dysfunction was associated with non-ischemic etiology of HF, smaller baseline LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and higher initial dosage of sacubitril/valsartan. Compared to those without recovery of LV dysfunction, death from cardiovascular causes or first unplanned hospitalization for HF (CVD/HFH) were significantly lower in patients with LVEF recovery [11.7% vs. 24.4%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.42, p = 0.014]. Among patients with recovery of LVEF, 51 patients continued to receive the same dosage of sacubitril/valsartan had higher LVEF and were less likely to have deterioration of LVEF than the other 26 patients who received either tapering dose of sacubitril/valsartan or switching from sacubitril/valsartan to renin-angiotensin-system blockers (LVEF 56.4 ± 5.3% vs. 45.0 ± 12.8%, p < 0.001; ΔLVEF 1.2 ± 5.1% vs. -9.3 ± 12.0%, p < 0.001). CVD/HFH occurred more frequently in the taper group than the maintenance group (23.1% vs. 5.9%, HR 0.22, p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Non-ischemic etiology of HF, smaller baseline LVEDD, and higher initial dosage of sacubitril/valsartan could predict better recovery of LV function. Among patients with functional recovery, tapering sacubitril/valsartan dose was associated with deterioration of recovered heart function and had less favorable prognosis during follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Literature describing recovery of left ventricular (LV) function post sacubitril/valsartan treatment and the optimal management of heart failure (HF) patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan remain sparse. METHODS: We recruited 437 consecutive chronic HFpatients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%, who were treated with sacubitril/valsartan. All patients underwent routine echocardiographic measurement. RESULTS: During treatment period, recovery of LVEF to 50% or greater was observed in 77 (17.6%) patients. After multivariate analysis, recovery of LV dysfunction was associated with non-ischemic etiology of HF, smaller baseline LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and higher initial dosage of sacubitril/valsartan. Compared to those without recovery of LV dysfunction, death from cardiovascular causes or first unplanned hospitalization for HF (CVD/HFH) were significantly lower in patients with LVEF recovery [11.7% vs. 24.4%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.42, p = 0.014]. Among patients with recovery of LVEF, 51 patients continued to receive the same dosage of sacubitril/valsartan had higher LVEF and were less likely to have deterioration of LVEF than the other 26 patients who received either tapering dose of sacubitril/valsartan or switching from sacubitril/valsartan to renin-angiotensin-system blockers (LVEF 56.4 ± 5.3% vs. 45.0 ± 12.8%, p < 0.001; ΔLVEF 1.2 ± 5.1% vs. -9.3 ± 12.0%, p < 0.001). CVD/HFH occurred more frequently in the taper group than the maintenance group (23.1% vs. 5.9%, HR 0.22, p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Non-ischemic etiology of HF, smaller baseline LVEDD, and higher initial dosage of sacubitril/valsartan could predict better recovery of LV function. Among patients with functional recovery, tapering sacubitril/valsartan dose was associated with deterioration of recovered heart function and had less favorable prognosis during follow-up.