Data_Sheet_1_Cardiac and Vascular Remodeling After 6 Months of Therapy With Sacubitril/Valsartan: Mechanistic Insights From Advanced Echocardiographic Analysis.docx
Effects of Sacubitril/Valsartan (S/V) on left ventricular (LV) mechanics and ventricular-arterial coupling in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are not completely understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate both cardiac and vascular remodeling in a group of HFrEF patients undergoing S/V therapy.
MethodsFifty HFrEF patients eligible to start a therapy with S/V were enrolled. Echocardiographic evaluation was performed at baseline and after 6 months of follow-up (FU). Beside standard evaluation, including global longitudinal strain (GLS), estimated hemodynamic forces (HDFs) and non-invasive pressure-volume curves (PV loop) were assessed using dedicated softwares. HDFs were evaluated over the entire cardiac cycle, in systole and diastole, both in apex to base (A-B) and latero-septal (L-S) directions. The distribution of LV HDFs was evaluated by L-S over A-B HDFs ratio (L-S/A-B HDFs ratio). Parameters derived from estimated PV loop curves were left ventricular end-systolic elastance (Ees), arterial elastance (Ea), and ventricular-arterial coupling (VAC).
ResultsAt 6 months of FU indexed left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes decreased (EDVi: 101 ± 28 mL vs. 86 ± 30 mL, p < 0.001; ESVi: 72 ± 23 mL vs. 55 ± 24 mL, p < 0.001), ejection fraction and GLS significantly improved (EF: 29 ± 6% vs. 37 ± 7%, p < 0.001; GLS: −9 ± 3% vs. −13 ± 4%, p < 0.001). A reduction of Ea (2.11 ± 0.91 mmHg/mL vs. 1.72 ± 0.44 mmHg/mL, p = 0.008) and an improvement of Ees (1.01 ± 0.37 mmHg/mL vs. 1.35 ± 0.6 mmHg/mL, p < 0.001) and VAC (2.3 ± 1.1 vs. 1.5 ± 0.7, p < 0.001) were observed. Re-alignment of HDFs occurred, with a reduction of diastolic L-S/A-B HDFs ratio [23 (20–35)% vs. 20 (11–28) %, p < 0.001].
ConclusionS/V therapy leads to a complex phenomenon of reverse remodeling involving increased myocardial contractility, HDFs distribution improvement, and afterload reduction.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1161/circ.132.suppl_3.19363
- https://doi.org//10.1056/NEJMoa1812851
- https://doi.org//10.1111/1755-5922.12435
- https://doi.org//10.1161/JAHA.119.012272
- https://doi.org//10.1001/jama.2019.12821
- https://doi.org//10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.054892
- https://doi.org//10.1093/eurheartj/ehw128
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ehjci/jex244
- https://doi.org//10.1161/01.CIR.102.15.1788
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0735-1097(01)01651-5
- https://doi.org//10.4103/2211-4122.127408
- https://doi.org//10.1152/ajpheart.01240.2005
- https://doi.org//10.1002/ejhf.1436
- https://doi.org//10.1007/BF02058751
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2017.06.046
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ehjci/jev137
- https://doi.org//10.3390/jcm9040906
- https://doi.org//10.1093/ehjci/jey157
- https://doi.org//10.1002/ehf2.12656
- https://doi.org//10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.114.001785
- https://doi.org//10.1002/ehf2.13225
- https://doi.org//10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.119.005819
- https://doi.org//10.1161/JAHA.121.023417
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.jbiomech.2019.109323
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.echo.2019.05.022
- https://doi.org//10.1002/ehf2.13719
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nrcardio.2014.75
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fcvm.2019.00059
- https://doi.org//10.1002/bit.10506
- https://doi.org//10.1161/JAHA.117.006617
- https://doi.org//10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.08556
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s10554-019-01708-4
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1476-5381.1989.tb12558.x
- https://doi.org//10.1152/ajpheart.1998.275.5.H1826
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nrcardio.2016.163
- https://doi.org//10.21037/atm.2020.04.10
- https://doi.org//10.1152/ajpheart.00191.2013
- https://doi.org//10.1152/ajpheart.1979.236.3.H498
- https://doi.org//10.1152/ajpheart.1981.240.3.H320
- https://doi.org//10.1161/01.RES.65.2.483
CC BY 4.0