ESC heart failure · 2022
Clinical impacts of sacubitril/valsartan on patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Huang Hsin-Ti, Huang Jin-Long, Lin Po-Lin, Lee Ying-Hsiang, Hsu Chien-Yi, Chung Fa-Po, Liao Chia-Te, Chiou Wei-Ru, Lin Wen-Yu, Liang Huai-Wen, Chang Hung-Yu
Аннотация
AIMS: Sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has been used in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could benefit the HFrEF patients with wide QRS durations. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impacts of SAC/VAL on reverse cardiac remodelling in CRT-eligible and CRT-ineligible HFrEF patients with different QRS durations.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The TAROT-HF study was a multicentre, observational study enrolling patients who initiated SAC/VAL from 10 hospitals since 2017. Patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were classified into two groups: (i) Group 1: CRT-eligible group, patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology plus QRS duration ≥130 ms or non-LBBB morphology plus QRS duration ≥150 ms; and (ii) Group 2: CRT-ineligible group. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders, and 1168 patients were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The improvements in LVEF and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) were more significant in Group 2 than in Group 1 after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (LVEF: 8.4% ± 11.3% vs. 4.5% ± 8.1%, P < 0.001; change percentages in LVESVi: -14.4% ± 25.9% vs. -9.6% ± 23.1%, P = 0.004). LVEF improving to ≥50% in Groups 1 and 2 constituted 5.2% and 20.2% after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that wide QRS durations were negatively associated with the reverse cardiac remodelling in these HFrEF patients with SAC/VAL treatment.
CONCLUSION: Despite SAC/VAL treatment, wide QRS durations are associated with lower degrees of left ventricular improvement than narrow ones in the HFrEF patients. Optimal intervention timing for the CRT-eligible patients requires further investigation.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The TAROT-HF study was a multicentre, observational study enrolling patients who initiated SAC/VAL from 10 hospitals since 2017. Patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were classified into two groups: (i) Group 1: CRT-eligible group, patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) morphology plus QRS duration ≥130 ms or non-LBBB morphology plus QRS duration ≥150 ms; and (ii) Group 2: CRT-ineligible group. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for confounders, and 1168 patients were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The improvements in LVEF and left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) were more significant in Group 2 than in Group 1 after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (LVEF: 8.4% ± 11.3% vs. 4.5% ± 8.1%, P < 0.001; change percentages in LVESVi: -14.4% ± 25.9% vs. -9.6% ± 23.1%, P = 0.004). LVEF improving to ≥50% in Groups 1 and 2 constituted 5.2% and 20.2% after 1 year SAC/VAL treatment (P < 0.001). Multivariate analyses showed that wide QRS durations were negatively associated with the reverse cardiac remodelling in these HFrEF patients with SAC/VAL treatment.
CONCLUSION: Despite SAC/VAL treatment, wide QRS durations are associated with lower degrees of left ventricular improvement than narrow ones in the HFrEF patients. Optimal intervention timing for the CRT-eligible patients requires further investigation.