Author Correction: Impact of sacubitril/valsartan on implantable defibrillator eligibility in heart failure: a real-world experience.

Correction to: European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 2021; 25 (18): 5690-5700-DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202109_26788-PMID: 34604961, published online on 30 September 2021. After publication, the authors applied to change the first two lines of Table II as the second column results were erroneously shifted in the first column. In this way, the results were quite difficult to understand. There are amendments to this paper. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. https://www.europeanreview.org/article/26788.

Impact of sacubitril/valsartan on implantable defibrillator eligibility in heart failure: a real-world experience.

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35%) despite ≥3 months of optimal medical therapy. Recent observations demonstrated that sacubitril/valsartan induces beneficial reverse cardiac remodeling in eligible HFrEF patients. Given the pivotal role of LVEF in the selection of ICD candidates, we sought to assess the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on ICD eligibility and its predictors in HFrEF patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 48 chronic HFrEF patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan and previously implanted with an ICD in primary prevention. We assumed that ICD was no longer necessary if LVEF improved >35% (or >30% if asymptomatics) at follow-up. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 11 months, sacubitril/valsartan induced a significant drop in LV end-systolic volume (-16.7 ml/m2, p=0.023) and diameter (-6.8 mm, p=0.022), resulting in a significant increase in LVEF (+3.9%, p<0.001). As a consequence, 40% of previously implanted patients resulted no more eligible for ICD at follow-up. NYHA class improved in 50% of the population. A dose-dependent effect was noted, with higher doses associated to more reverse remodeling. Among patients deemed no more eligible for ICD, lower NYHA class (odds ratio (OR) 3.73 [95% CI 1.05; 13.24], p=0.041), better LVEF (OR 1.23 [95% CI 1.01; 1.48], p=0.032) and the treatment with the intermediate or high dose of sacubitril/valsartan (OR 5.60 [1.15; 27.1], p=0.032) were the most important predictors of status change. CONCLUSIONS: In symptomatic HFrEF patients, sacubitril/valsartan induced beneficial cardiac reverse remodeling and improved NYHA class. These effects resulted in a significant reduction of patients deemed eligible for ICD in primary prevention.

Effectiveness of the new generation transcatheter aortic valve in the real life studies. Review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the meta-analysis was to assess post-procedural outcome of the new generation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices, focusing on the transfemoral and balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA, USA), the self-expanding CoreValveTM Evolut series R and PRO (R/PRO)TM (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) and ACURATE neoTM transcatheter aortic valve (Symetis SA, a Boston Scientific company, Ecublens, Switzerland). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All observational studies were retrieved through PubMed computerized database from January 2014 until June 30th, 2019. The risk difference (RD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention under comparison. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Safety end points included: (i) stroke, (ii) moderate/severe paravalvular leak, and (iii) the need for new permanent pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences as regards to either 30-day mortality or stroke for all the groups of prostheses under comparison. ACURATE neo was associated with significantly less new permanent pacemaker implantation compared to SAPIEN 3 (RD: -0.06; 95% CI -0.08 to -0.03; p<0.0001; I2=0%) or to EVOLUT R/PRO (RD: -0.06; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.02; p=0.0009; I2=0%). A significant reduction of new permanent pacemaker need was observed in the group of patients implanted with SAPIEN 3 compared to EVOLUT R/PRO (RD: -0.07; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; p<0.00001; I2=7%). The occurrence of moderate/severe leak was significantly increased in the group of patients implanted with ACURATE neo vs. SAPIEN 3 (RD: 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.05; p<0.00001; I2=0%). No significant differences were found between ACURATE neo vs. EVOLUT R/PRO (RD: -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; p=0.69; I2=0%) and between SAPIEN 3 vs. EVOLUT R/PRO (RD: -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; p=0.28; I2=73%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the meta-analysis show that: (1) ACURATE neo was associated with significantly less new permanent pacemaker implantation than SAPIEN 3 and EVOLUT R/PRO; (2) SAPIEN 3 had significantly lower occurrence of moderate/severe valvular leak than ACURATE neo.