It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Aims
A novel tool for the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) systo‐diastolic function through echo‐derived haemodynamic forces (HDFs) has been recently proposed. The present study aimed to assess the predictive value of HDFs on (i) 6 month treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients and (ii) cardiovascular events.
Methods and results
Eighty‐nine consecutive HFrEF patients [70% males, 65 ± 9 years, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 27 ± 7%] initiating sacubitril/valsartan underwent clinical, laboratory, ultrasound and cardiopulmonary exercise testing evaluations. Patients experiencing no adverse events and showing ≥50% reduction in plasma N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide and/or ≥10% LVEF increase over 6 months were considered responders. Patients were followed up for the composite endpoint of HF‐related hospitalisation, atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular death. Forty‐five (51%) patients were responders. Among baseline variables, only HDF‐derived whole cardiac cycle LV strength (wLVS) was higher in responders (4.4 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.2; p = 0.01). wLVS was also the only independent predictor of sacubitril/valsartan response at multivariable logistic regression analysis [odds ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10–1.67], with good accuracy at receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis [optimal cutpoint: ≥3.7%; area under the curve (AUC) = 0.736]. During a 33 month (23–41) median follow‐up, a wLVS increase after 6 months (ΔwLVS) showed a high discrimination ability at time‐dependent ROC analysis (optimal cut‐off: ≥0.5%; AUC = 0.811), stratified prognosis (log‐rank p < 0.0001) and remained an independent predictor for the composite endpoint (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.61–0.95; p < 0.01), after adjusting for clinical and instrumental variables.
Conclusions
HDF analysis predicts sacubitril/valsartan response and might optimise decision‐making in HFrEF patients.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Pisa, Italy
2 Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
3 Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy, Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, California, USA
4 Division of Cardiology, ‘G. D'Annunzio’ University, Chieti, Italy
5 Fondazione Toscana Gabriele Monasterio, Pisa, Italy, ‘Health Science’ Interdisciplinary Research Center, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy
6 Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia Civil Hospital, Brescia, Italy
7 Department of Medical Biotechnologies, Division of Cardiology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy