Dataset Information

Less loop diuretic use in patients on sacubitril/valsartan undergoing remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Control of pulmonary pressures monitored remotely reduced heart failure hospitalizations mainly by lowering filling pressures through the use of loop diuretics. Sacubitril/valsartan improves heart failure outcomes and increases the kidney sensitivity for diuretics. We explored whether sacubitril/valsartan is associated with less utilization of loop diuretics in patients guided with haemodynamic monitoring in the CardioMEMS European Monitoring Study for Heart Failure (MEMS-HF).

Methods and results

The MEMS-HF population (n = 239) was separated by the use of sacubitril/valsartan (n = 68) or no use of it (n = 164). Utilization of diuretics and their doses was prespecified in the protocol and was monitored in both groups. Multivariable regression, ANCOVA, and a generalized linear model were used to fit baseline covariates with furosemide equivalents and changes for 12 months. MEMS-HF participants (n = 239) were grouped in sacubitril/valsartan users [n = 68, 64 ± 11 years, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 25 ± 9%, cardiac index (CI) 1.89 ± 0.4 L/min/m² ] vs. non-users (n = 164, 70 ± 10 years, LVEF 36 ± 16%, CI 2.11 ± 0.58 L/min/m² , P = 0.0002, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.0015, respectively). In contrast, mean pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) values were comparable between groups (29 ± 11 vs. 31 ± 11 mmHg, P = 0.127). Utilization of loop diuretics was lower in patients taking sacubitril/valsartan compared with those without (P = 0.01). Significant predictor of loop diuretic use was a history of renal failure (P = 0.005) but not age (P = 0.091). After subjects were stratified by sacubitril/valsartan or other diuretic use, PAP was nominally, but not significantly lower in sacubitril/valsartan-treated patients (baseline: P = 0.52; 6 months: P = 0.07; 12 months: P = 0.53), while there was no difference in outcome or PAP changes. This difference was observed despite lower CI (P = 0.0015). Comparable changes were not observed for other non-loop diuretics (P = 0.21).

Conclusions

In patients whose treatment was guided by remote PAP monitoring, concomitant use of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with reduced utilization of loop diuretics, which could potentially be relevant for outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Bohm M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8787966 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend targeting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mm Hg in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with limited data.ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the optimal achieved SBP and whether the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes are related to BP lowering, particularly among women who derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.MethodsUsing 4,795 trial participants, this study related baseline and time-updated mean achieved SBP quartiles (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, ≥140 mm Hg) to the primary outcome (cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalization), its components, myocardial infarction or stroke, and a renal composite outcome. At the 16-week visit, the study assessed the relationship between SBP change and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The study analyzed whether the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan accounted for its treatment effects.ResultsAverage age was 73 ± 8 years, and 52% of participants were women. After multivariable adjustment, baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg demonstrated the lowest risk for all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by 5.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: 4.4 to 6.0) compared with valsartan at 4 weeks, which was not modified by baseline SBP. However, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP more in women (6.3 mm Hg) than men (4.0 mm Hg) (interaction p = 0.005). Change in SBP was directly associated with change in NT-proBNP (p < 0.001) but not KCCQ-OSS (p = 0.40). The association between sacubitril/valsartan and the primary outcome was not modified by baseline SBP (interaction p = 0.50) and was similar when adjusting for time-updated SBP, regardless of sex.ConclusionsBaseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg identified the lowest risk patients with HFpEF. Baseline SBP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan, and the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan did not account for its effects on outcomes, regardless of sex. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Project description:BackgroundSacubitril/valsartan significantly reduced heart failure hospitalization and mortality in PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor With an Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). However, real-world data from its use are lacking.Methods and resultsWe retrospectively assessed all baseline and follow-up data of consecutive heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction receiving therapy with sacubitril/valsartan for Class I recommendation between December 2016 and July 2017. Baseline characteristics and dose titration of sacubitril/valsartan were compared between patients in clinical practice and in PARADIGM-HF. A total of 120 patients (81% male) were switched from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker to sacubitril/valsartan. A total of 20.1% of patients received dose uptitration. Patients were treated with an equipotential dose of renin-angiotensin system blockers before and after uptitration of sacubitril/valsartan (57 ± 29% vs. 53 ± 29% of target dose indicated by European Society of Cardiology guidelines; P = 0.286). However, they received a lower dose of sacubitril/valsartan in comparison with those in the PARADIGM-HF (219 ± 12 vs. 375 ± 75 mg; P < 0.001). In comparison with the patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan in PARADIGM-HF, patients in clinical practice were older and had a higher serum creatinine, higher New York Heart Association functional classification, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (all P-value <0.05). Even in comparison with patients who experienced dropout during the run-in phase of PARADIGM-HF, real-world patients exhibited baseline characteristics indicative of more disease severity. Patients were at high absolute baseline risk for adverse outcome as illustrated by the EMPHASIS-HF (Eplerenone in Mild Patients Hospitalization and Survival Study in Heart Failure) risk score of 6 (inter-quartile range 3), in comparison with 5 (inter-quartile range 4) in PARADIGM-HF. After initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, New York Heart Association class significantly improved (P < 0.001), but systolic blood pressure dropped more than was reported in PARADIGM-HF (7.1 ± 8.0 vs. 3.2 ± 0.4 mmHg; P < 0.001).ConclusionsPatients in clinical practice exhibit baseline characteristics associated with more severe disease, which might lead to prescription of lower doses. Nevertheless, patients in clinical practice are at high risk of adverse outcome as illustrated by the EMPHASIS-HF risk score, underscoring the large potential for sacubitril/valsartan therapy to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause mortality.