CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Congestive Heart Failure

Abstract

Recommended Article

Diagnostic performance of congestion score index evaluated from chest radiography for acute heart failure in the emergency department: A retrospective analysis from the PARADISE cohort Mechanical circulatory support devices in advanced heart failure: 2020 and beyond Heart Failure With Mid-Range (Borderline) Ejection Fraction: Clinical Implications and Future Directions Clinical epidemiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in comparatively young hospitalized patients Myofibroblast Phenotype and Reversibility of Fibrosis in Patients With End-Stage Heart Failure Metformin Lowers Body Weight But Fails to Increase Insulin Sensitivity in Chronic Heart Failure Patients without Diabetes: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Outcomes and Effect of Treatment According to Etiology in HFrEF An Analysis of PARADIGM-HF Noninvasive Imaging for the Evaluation of Diastolic Function: Promises Fulfilled

Clinical Trial2019 Feb 7;380(6):539-548.

JOURNAL:N Engl J Med. Article Link

Angiotensin-Neprilysin Inhibition in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Velazquez EJ, Morrow DA, DeVore AD et al.

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND -  Acute decompensated heart failure accounts for more than 1 million hospitalizations in the United States annually. Whether the initiation of sacubitril-valsartan therapy is safe and effective among patients who are hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure is unknown.


METHODS - We enrolled patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure at 129 sites in the United States. After hemodynamic stabilization, patients were randomly assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan (target dose, 97 mg of sacubitril with 103 mg of valsartan twice daily) or enalapril (target dose, 10 mg twice daily). The primary efficacy outcome was the time-averaged proportional change in the N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration from baseline through weeks 4 and 8. Key safety outcomes were the rates of worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, and angioedema.


RESULTS -  Of the 881 patients who underwent randomization, 440 were assigned to receive sacubitril-valsartan and 441 to receive enalapril. The time-averaged reduction in the NT-proBNP concentration was significantly greater in the sacubitril-valsartan group than in the enalapril group; the ratio of the geometric mean of values obtained at weeks 4 and 8 to the baseline value was 0.53 in the sacubitril-valsartan group as compared with 0.75 in the enalapril group (percent change, -46.7% vs. -25.3%; ratio of change with sacubitril-valsartan vs. enalapril, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.81; P<0.001). The greater reduction in the NT-proBNP concentration with sacubitril-valsartan than with enalapril was evident as early as week 1 (ratio of change, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.85). The rates of worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, and angioedema did not differ significantly between the two groups.


CONCLUSIONS -  Among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure, the initiation of sacubitril-valsartan therapy led to a greater reduction in the NT-proBNP concentration than enalapril therapy. Rates of worsening renal function, hyperkalemia, symptomatic hypotension, and angioedema did not differ significantly between the two groups. (Funded by Novartis; PIONEER-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02554890 .).