Efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan on improving clinical symptoms in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated with heart failure: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) significantly contributes to the progression of heart failure (HF). Standard treatment for HF has long been angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), targeting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). Recent developments in HF management introduced sacubitril/valsartan (S/V), a novel angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), showing promising results in global trials. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of early S/V application compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in reducing NT-proBNP levels and improving clinical outcomes, specifically focusing on dyspnea symptomatology, in Chinese patients with AMI complicated by HF.

METHODS

This single-center, mixed methods study was conducted at Tangshan Gongren Hospital from January to December 2021, including 88 patients diagnosed with AMI and HF. Patients were divided into two groups: 31 received S/V, while 57 were treated with ACEIs. Data collection encompassed baseline demographic, clinical, and biochemical variables, NT-proBNP levels, blood pressure measurements, and dyspnea symptom severity. Follow-up assessments were conducted 1 year post-discharge to evaluate NT-proBNP levels, and symptom progression. Statistical analyses, including t-tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and chi-square tests, were performed to compare outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

At baseline, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of demographic, lifestyle, and medical history. Although patients in the S/V group presented with more severe baseline renal impairment and cardiac dysfunction, there was no significant difference in NT-proBNP levels from admission to discharge. 1-year follow-up showed a trend towards reduced NT-proBNP levels in the S/V group, though this difference did not reach statistical significance. All patients in both groups reported improvements in dyspnea at discharge and at follow-up, with no significant inter-group difference. Notably, the S/V group demonstrated a more significant reduction in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure from admission to discharge compared to the ACEIs group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that S/V had similar effects to ACEIs in reducing NT-proBNP levels among Chinese patients with AMI complicated by HF, though S/V was associated with greater reductions in blood pressure. These findings suggest that while S/V may offer additional benefits in blood pressure management, its impact on cardiac biomarkers in acute settings may not significantly differ from ACEIs. Given the study's limitations, including its single-center design, small sample size, and baseline differences. Further multi-center, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings and explore tailored treatment strategies for AMI patients with concurrent HF.