Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiac remodeling compared with other renin–angiotensin system inhibitors: a difference-in-difference analysis of propensity-score matched samples
Background In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril–valsartan (S/V) may reverse left ventricular remodeling (rLVR). Whether this effect is superior to that induced by other renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors is not well known. Methods HF...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical research in cardiology 2024-06, Vol.113 (6), p.856-865 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
In patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), treatment with sacubitril–valsartan (S/V) may reverse left ventricular remodeling (rLVR). Whether this effect is superior to that induced by other renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors is not well known.
Methods
HFrEF patients treated with S/V (
n
= 795) were compared, by propensity score matching, with a historical cohort of 831 HFrEF patients (non-S/V group) treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (RAS inhibitors). All patients were also treated with beta-blockers and shared the same protocol with repeat echocardiogram 8–12 months after starting therapy. The difference-in-difference (DiD) analysis was used to evaluate the impact of S/V on CR indices between the two groups.
Results
After propensity score matching, compared to non-S/V group (
n
= 354), S/V group (
n
= 354) showed a relative greater reduction in end-diastolic and end-systolic volume index (ESVI), and greater increase in ejection fraction (DiD estimator = + 5.42 mL/m
2
,
P
= 0.0005; + 4.68 mL/m
2
,
P
= 0.0009, and + 1.76%,
P
= 0.002, respectively). Reverse LVR (reduction in ESVI ≥ 15% from baseline) was more prevalent in S/V than in non-S/V group (34% vs 26%,
P
= 0.017), while adverse LVR (aLVR, increase in ESVI at follow-up ≥ 15%) was more frequent in non-S/V than in S/V (16% vs 7%,
P
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 1861-0684 1861-0692 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00392-023-02306-0 |