Add-on Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy Induces Left Ventricular Remodeling in Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy to a Similar Extent as in Heart Failure Patients Without Resynchronization

Krisztina Mária Szabó; Anna Tóth; László Nagy; Vivien Rácz; Zsófia Pólik; Katalin Hodosi; Attila C Nagy; Judit Barta; Attila Borbély; Zoltán Csanádi

doi:10.1007/s40119-023-00346-1

Add-on Sacubitril/Valsartan Therapy Induces Left Ventricular Remodeling in Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy to a Similar Extent as in Heart Failure Patients Without Resynchronization

Cardiol Ther. 2024 Mar;13(1):149-161. doi: 10.1007/s40119-023-00346-1. Epub 2024 Jan 12.

Affiliations

¹ Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Móricz Zsigmond Krt. 22., Debrecen, 4032, Hungary. dr.szabo.krisztina.maria@med.unideb.hu.
² Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Debrecen, Móricz Zsigmond Krt. 22., Debrecen, 4032, Hungary.
³ Department of Health Informatics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary.

Abstract

Introduction: Non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-NR) have poor prognosis. Sacubitril/valsartan (SV) treatment improved the outcome of patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (HFrEF) in randomized trials with no data on the specific cohort of CRT-NRs. The aim of this study was to compare the echocardiographic and biomarker changes in CRT-NR patients treated with versus without SV, and in patients with HFrEF on SV therapy.

Methods: CRT-NR patients initiated on SV (group I), CRT-NR patients on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARB) (group II), and patients with HFrEF (without CRT) initiated on SV (group III) were identified in our heart failure (HF) registry. CRT-NR was defined as < 10% improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LV EF) 6 months after the implantation. Echocardiographic parameters and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at baseline and at the end of follow-up were compared.

Results: A total of 275 patients (group I, 70; group II, 70; and group III, 135) were included. After a follow-up of 7.54 ± 1.8 months (mean ± standard deviation [SD]), LV EF (%) increased in group I (25.2 ± 5.7 versus 29.4% ± 6.7; p < 0.001) and in group III (26.6 ± 6.4 versus 29.9 ± 6.7; p < 0.001). LV end-systolic diameters (mm) decreased in group I (56.6 ± 9.0 versus 54.3 ± 8.7; p = 0.004) and in group III (55.9 ± 9.9 versus 54.3 ± 11.2; p = 0.021). The levels of NT-proBNP (pg/mL) decreased in group I (2058.86 [1041.07-4502.51] versus 1121.55 [545-2541]; p < 0.001) and in group III (2223.35 [1233.03-4795.96] versus 1123.09 [500.38-2651.27]; p < 0.001). The extent of improvement was similar in groups I and III (p > 0.05). No significant changes were detected in group II.

Conclusion: SV therapy induced similar improvements in echocardiographic parameters and in NT-proBNP levels in CRT-NR patients and in patients with HFrEF without resynchronization.

Keywords: Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; NT-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; Sacubitril/valsartan.