Pseudo-nephropathy and hyper-excretion of urinary C-peptide: an overlooked adverse effect of an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI).

Sacubitril/valsartan, which is a combined angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), is used for the treatment of chronic heart failure and hypertension. Substrates of neprilysin are numerous, and the systemic effects of an ARNI remain to be determined. Increased urinary C-peptide (UCPR) and urinary albumin (UAlb) excretion has been reported with the use of an ARNI, but the mechanism is still unknown. We report an 84-year-old man with type 2 diabetes and hypertension. His UAlb and UCPR excretion and (to a lesser degree) the estimated glomerular filtration rate were increased after ARNI administration. They returned to basal levels after discontinuing ARNI administration. There was little or no change in glycemic control. Therefore, increased glomerular permeability and filtration could partially explain how neprilysin inhibition led to an elevation in UCPR excretion, in addition to other mechanisms, such as impairment of the renal ability to degrade C-peptide. Physicians must be cautious when interpreting the insulin secretion capability by UCPR and nephropathy by UAlb in ARNI-treated patients with diabetes.

Clinical Benefit of Sacubitril/Valsartan for Hypertensive Patients in Daily Practice and Predictors of Its Antihypertensive Effect.

Background: The blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of sacubitril/valsartan (Sac/Val) is greater than that of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) but in in real-world clinical practice, Sac/Val is used in a variety of patterns other than switching from ARBs. In the present study we investigated the effects of Sac/Val on BP and biochemical parameters when switching from or adding it to various antihypertensive drugs and examined what factors could be predictors of the antihypertensive effect of Sac/Val. Methods and Results: In 108 hypertensive patients treated with antihypertensive agents (including 4 naïve cases), clinic BP and various biochemical parameters were assessed before and after switching to/adding Sac/Val (200 mg/day). Systolic and diastolic BPs significantly decreased after treatment with Sac/Val (P<0.0001, respectively). As for biochemical parameters, alanine aminotransferase, triglycerides, C-reactive protein, and uric acid significantly decreased after administration of Sac/Val, but renal function, B-type natriuretic peptide, and plasma renin activity (PRA) did not change before or after treatment with Sac/Val. Multiple regression analysis revealed that low PRA and high baseline systolic BP were independent determinants of systolic BP reduction after Sac/Val treatment. Conclusions: Sac/Val is beneficial for poorly controlled hypertension in daily clinical practice and low PRA may be a predictor of the antihypertensive effect of switching to/adding Sac/Val.

Acute changes in kidney function and outcomes following an acute myocardial infarction: Insights from PARADISE-MI.

AIMS: Pharmacologic blockade of neurohormonal pathways in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) can result in acute changes in biomarkers of kidney function. We evaluated the effect of sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril on initial changes in serum creatinine and the association of these changes with longer-term outcomes among participants in PARADISE-MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, event-driven trial, 5661 patients with an acute MI were assigned to receive sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril, with no run-in. The frequency of an initial pre-specified increase in serum creatinine (≥26.5 or ≥44 µmol/L) from baseline to week 1 was compared between arms. Multivariable Cox regression models were fit to examine the association of acute changes in serum creatinine with the primary cardiovascular composite outcome (cardiovascular death, first heart failure hospitalization, or outpatient heart failure), all-cause mortality, and longer-term changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). An initial increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 µmol/L occurred in 155 of 2604 (6.0%) patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan and 120 of 2603 (4.6%) patients assigned to ramipril (odds ratio [OR] 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.68). The corresponding numbers for an increase ≥44 µmol/L were 57 (2.2%) and 42 (1.6%), respectively (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.92-2.05). A higher odds of increased serum creatinine ≥26.5 and ≥44 µmol/L for sacubitril/valsartan versus ramipril appeared to be restricted to patients who had a greater decline in systolic blood pressure over the same period (p-interaction = 0.05 and 0.001, respectively). In multivariable analyses, neither an acute increase in serum creatinine ≥26.5 or ≥44 µmol/L was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, or differences in longer-term eGFR slope. Findings were similar across the randomized treatment arms (p-interaction >0.6 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Following acute MI, patients assigned to sacubitril/valsartan had a higher frequency of initial increases in serum creatinine at 1 week, compared with ramipril. In adjusted models, initial increases in serum creatinine with either treatment were not associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes or changes in longer-term kidney function.

The contemporary role of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) in the management of heart failure: State-of-the-art review.

Novel therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), etc. The purpose of this review is to determine the effects of ARNI and SGLT2i in heart failure (HF), compare the impact of SGLT2i with ARNI, and finally evaluate the current data regarding the combination of these two drugs in HF. Various trials on the respective medications have shown some significant reduction in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) death. The combination of these drugs has shown more CV benefits than monotherapy. There is emerging data about these two drugs in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). At present, there are less head-to-head comparison trials of these two drugs. This review provides insights on the current evidence, comparative efficacy, and combination therapy of ARNI and SGLT2i in managing HF, focussing on HFrEF and HFpEF.

Effects of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor on ketone body metabolism in pre-heart failure/heart failure patients.

Recently, a mild elevation of the blood ketone levels was found to exert multifaceted cardioprotective effects. To investigate the effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) on the blood ketone body levels, 46 stable pre-heart failure (HF)/HF patients were studied, including 23 who switched from angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) to ARNIs (ARNI group) and 23 who continued treatment with ACE inhibitors or ARBs (control group). At baseline, there were no significant differences in the total ketone body (TKB) levels between the two groups. Three months later, the TKB levels in the ARNI group were higher than the baseline values (baseline to 3 months: 71 [51, 122] to 92 [61, 270] µmol/L, P < 0.01). In the control group, no significant change was observed between the baseline and 3 months later. A multiple regression analysis demonstrated that the initiation of ARNI and an increase in the blood non-esterified fatty acid (NEFA) levels at 3 months increased the percentage changes in the TKB levels from baseline to 3 months (%ΔTKB level) (initiation of ARNI: P = 0.017, NEFA level at 3 months: P < 0.001). These results indicate that ARNI administration induces a mild elevation of the blood TKB levels in pre-HF/HF patients.

Status and timing of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor implementation in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Data from the Swedish Heart Failure Registry.

AIMS: We explored timing, settings and predictors of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) initiation in a large, nationwide cohort of patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction <40%) registered in the Swedish HF Registry in 2017-2021 and naïve to ARNI were evaluated for timing and location of, and their characteristics at ARNI initiation. ARNI use increased from 8.3% in 2017 to 26.7% in 2021. Among 3892 hospitalized patients, 8% initiated ARNI in-hospital or ≤14 days after discharge, 4% between 15 and 90 days, and 88% >90 days after discharge or never initiated. Factors associated with earlier initiation included follow-up in specialized HF care, more severe HF, previous HF treatment use and higher income, whereas older age, higher comorbidity burden and living alone were associated with later/no initiation. Of 16 486 HFrEF patients, 8.1% inpatients and 5.9% outpatients initiated an ARNI at the index date. Factors associated with initiation in outpatients were overall consistent with those linked with an in-hospital/earlier ARNI initiation; 4.9% of 10 209 with HF duration <6 months and 9.1% of 5877 with HF duration ≥6 months initiated ARNI. Predictors of ARNI initiation in HF duration <6 months were inpatient status, lower ejection fraction, hypertension, whereas previous angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use was associated with less likely initiation. Discontinuation at 1 year ranged between 13% and 20% across the above-reported analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital and early initiation of ARNI are limited in real-world care but still slightly more likely than in outpatients. ARNI were more likely initiated in patients with more severe HF, which might suggest its use as a second-line treatment and only following worsening of clinical status. One-year discontinuation rates were consistent regardless of the timing/setting of ARNI initiation.

Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Heart Failure and Deterioration in eGFR to <30 mL/min/1.73 m2.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan is a foundational therapy for patients with heart failure. Although current U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling does not provide guidance regarding initiation or continuation of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with worsening kidney function, guidelines identify estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 as a contraindication to therapy. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of continuing sacubitril/valsartan in patients with deterioration of kidney function below an eGFR of 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. METHODS: The association between a deterioration in eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, efficacy and safety outcomes, and treatment with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor were evaluated using time updated Cox models in a post hoc parallel trial analyses of PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. RESULTS: Among 8,346 randomized patients in PARADIGM-HF and 4,746 in PARAGON-HF, 691 (8.3%) and 613 (12.9%), respectively, had an eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 at least once in follow-up. Patients experiencing such deterioration were at higher risk of the primary outcome in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. However, the incidence of the primary outcome remained lower with sacubitril/valsartan vs renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, regardless of deterioration in kidney function in both PARADIGM-HF (Pinteraction = 0.50) and PARAGON-HF (Pinteraction = 0.64). Rates of key safety outcomes were higher among patients experiencing eGFR deterioration; however, rates were similar between treatment groups including among those who remained on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients experiencing deterioration of kidney function to a value below eGFR 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 faced high risk of cardiovascular and kidney disease outcomes. Continuation of sacubitril/valsartan was associated with persistent clinical benefit and no incremental safety risk. These data support continuation of sacubitril/valsartan for heart failure treatment even when eGFR declines below this threshold (PARADIGM-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure], NCT01035255; and PARAGON-HF [Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ARB Global Outcomes in HF with Preserved Ejection Fraction], NCT01920711).

Study on the Effects of Angiotensin Receptor/Neprilysin Inhibitors on Renal Haemodynamics in Healthy Dogs.

An angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), a heart failure treatment, is a combination drug made up of sacubitril, a neprilysin inhibitor, and valsartan, a vascular receptor blocker. No human or veterinary studies regarding the effect of ARNI on renal haemodynamics in the absence of cardiac or renal issues exist. Therefore, we investigated the effect of ARNI on renal haemodynamics in five healthy dogs. ARNI was administered to all five dogs at an oral dose of 20 mg/kg twice daily for 4 weeks. Renal haemodynamics were assessed on the day before ARNI administration (BL), on Day 7, and on Day 28. The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) significantly increased on Day 28 compared to BL and Day 7, whereas renal plasma flow increased on Day 7 and Day 28 compared to BL. Systolic blood pressure significantly decreased between BL and Day 28. Plasma atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) concentrations increased on Day 7 compared to BL. Additionally, ANP concentrations increased on Day 28 in three of the five dogs. Different ANP concentrations were observed in the remaining two dogs. Both urine output volume and heart rate remained relatively stable and did not exhibit significant change. In conclusion, ARNI may enhance renal haemodynamics in healthy dogs. ARNI could be a valuable drug for treating both heart and kidney disease in dogs.

Role of angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor in diabetic complications.

Diabetes mellitus is a prevalent disorder with multi-system manifestations, causing a significant burden in terms of disability and deaths globally. Angio-tensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) belongs to a class of medications for treating heart failure, with the benefits of reducing hospitalization rates and mortality. This review mainly focuses on the clinical and basic investigations related to ARNI and diabetic complications, discussing possible physiological and molecular mechanisms, with insights for future applications.

Impact of Insurance Status and Region on Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Prescription During Heart Failure Hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: An angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) is the preferred renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Among eligible patients, insurance status and prescriber concern regarding out-of-pocket costs may constrain early initiation of ARNI and other new therapies. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the association of insurance and other social determinants of health with ARNI initiation at discharge from HFrEF hospitalization. METHODS: The authors analyzed ARNI initiation from January 2017 to June 2020 among patients with HFrEF eligible to receive RAS inhibitor at discharge from hospitals in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry. The primary outcome was the proportion of ARNI prescription at discharge among those prescribed RAS inhibitor who were not on ARNI on admission. A logistic regression model was used to determine the association of insurance status, U.S. region, and their interaction, as well as self-reported race, with ARNI initiation at discharge. RESULTS: From 42,766 admissions, 24,904 were excluded for absolute or relative contraindications to RAS inhibitors. RAS inhibitors were prescribed for 16,817 (94.2%) of remaining discharges, for which ARNI was prescribed in 1,640 (9.8%). Self-reported Black patients were less likely to be initiated on ARNI compared to self-reported White patients (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.50-0.81). Compared to Medicare beneficiaries, patients with third-party insurance, Medicaid, or no insurance were less likely to be initiated on ARNI (OR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.72], OR: 0.41 [95% CI: 0.25-0.67], and OR: 0.20 [95% CI: 0.08-0.47], respectively). ARNI therapy varied by hospital region, with lowest utilization in the Mountain region. An interaction was demonstrated between the impact of insurance disparities and hospital region. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized between 2017 and 2020 for HFrEF who were prescribed RAS inhibitor therapy at discharge, insurance status, geographic region, and self-reported race were associated with ARNI initiation.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor Suppresses Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Activation After Cardiac Surgery Using Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

BACKGROUND: Sacubitril/valsartan, being both a neprilysin inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker, exhibits a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitory effect. However, no study has investigated the administration of sacubitril/valsartan in patients early after surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass.Methods and Results: This was a prospective observational study of 63 patients who underwent open heart surgery and were treated with sacubitril/valsartan. No serious adverse events occurred. Among the 63 patients, sacubitril/valsartan was discontinued in 13 due to hypotension (n=10), renal dysfunction (n=2), and dizziness (n=1). Atrial natriuretic peptide concentrations increased significantly from Day 3 of treatment (P=0.0142 vs. Postoperative Day 1) and remained high thereafter. In contrast, plasma renin activity was significantly suppressed from Day 3 onwards (P=0.00206 vs. Postoperative Day 1). A decrease in creatinine concentrations and an increase in the estimated glomerular filtration rate were observed on Day 3; this improvement in renal function was not observed in the historical control group, in which patients did not receive sacubitril/valsartan. New postoperative atrial fibrillation was less frequent in the study group compared with the historical control (12.7% vs. 38.0%; P=0.0034). CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan administration was safe immediately after open heart surgery in patients without postoperative hypotension. It enhanced serum atrial natriuretic peptide concentrations and suppressed RAAS activation.

Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Chronic Type B Aortic Dissection Combined With Mild Hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Optimal antihypertensive medication for chronic type B aortic dissection (AD) remains undecided. This study compared the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan with valsartan to determine suitable antihypertensive drug combinations. METHODS: In this single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with chronic Stanford type B AD and mild hypertension were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan 100/200 mg or valsartan 80/160 mg. The primary endpoint was the reduction in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) at week 8 in patients with sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan. Key secondary endpoints included changes in (i) mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (msDBP); (ii) pulse pressure (PP); and (iii) mean ambulatory blood pressure (BP) for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2300073399. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients completed the study. Sacubitril/valsartan provided a significantly greater reduction in msSBP than valsartan at week 8 (between-treatment difference: -5.1 mm Hg [95% confidence interval -5.8 to -4.5], P < 0.001). Reductions in msSBP, msDBP, and PP as well as the mean ambulatory BP for 24-hour, daytime, and nighttime, were significantly greater in sacubitril/valsartan compared with valsartan (all P < 0.001). No excessive episodes of AEs occurred in the sacubitril/valsartan group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacubitril/valsartan and valsartan reduced BP compared with baseline values. However, sacubitril/valsartan improved BP control to a greater extent than valsartan. It may offer a new treatment option for patients with mild hypertension and chronic type B AD.

The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared to Valsartan in Patients with Heart Failure and Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fractions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan improves heart failure (HF) outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have shown inconsistent results. We conducted this meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan within this specific patient population. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE database and ClinicalTrials.gov and identified four RCTs that could be included in our analysis, with 3375 patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 3362 in the valsartan group. Results: Our study shows that, in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to valsartan in some of the key HF outcomes, such as the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ CSS), with a small but significant mean difference of 1.13 (95% confidence interval or CI of 0.15 to 2.11, p-value 0.024), an improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (odds ratio or OR of 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58, p-value 0.002), and the composite outcome of hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular death, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99, p-value 0.04). However, there was no additional benefit with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan for the outcomes of cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality. In terms of side effects, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a higher risk of hypotension when compared to valsartan (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.19, p-value < 0.0001), but did not show an increased risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. Conclusions: In individuals with HFmrEF or HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan can result in improvements in the HF outcomes of the KCCQ CSS, the NYHA class, and the composite outcome of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death when compared to valsartan. While there was a higher risk of hypotension with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan, there was no corresponding increase in the risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function.

Heart failure pharmacotherapy and cancer: pathways and pre-clinical/clinical evidence.

Heart failure (HF) patients have a significantly higher risk of new-onset cancer and cancer-associated mortality, compared to subjects free of HF. While both the prevention and treatment of new-onset HF in patients with cancer have been investigated extensively, less is known about the prevention and treatment of new-onset cancer in patients with HF, and whether and how guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF should be modified when cancer is diagnosed in HF patients. The purpose of this review is to elaborate and discuss the effects of pillar HF pharmacotherapies, as well as digoxin and diuretics on cancer, and to identify areas for further research and novel therapeutic strategies. To this end, in this review, (i) proposed effects and mechanisms of action of guideline-directed HF drugs on cancer derived from pre-clinical data will be described, (ii) the evidence from both observational studies and randomized controlled trials on the effects of guideline-directed medical therapy on cancer incidence and cancer-related outcomes, as synthetized by meta-analyses will be reviewed, and (iii) considerations for future pre-clinical and clinical investigations will be provided.

Assessing the early prognosis of heart failure after acute myocardial infarction using left ventricular pressure-strain loop: a prospective randomized controlled clinical study.

Background: The left ventricular pressure-strain loop (LV-PSL) technique, which is noninvasive and independent of pressure load, is more sensitive than is left ventricular speckle tracking imaging in detecting subtle changes in myocardial function. This study evaluated the improvement in cardiac function after application of LV-PSL in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after acute myocardial infarction (MI) treated with sacubitril/valsartan plus dapagliflozin as compared to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan monotherapy. Methods: This prospective, multicenter, open-label study recruited 60 MI survivors with HFrEF between March 2021 and June 2022. The patients were randomly assigned in 1:1 groups, as stratified by center. Patients were randomly categorized into either an observation group [n=30; conventional treatment + 100 mg (49/51 mg) of sacubitril/valsartan, + 10 mg of dapagliflozin] or a control group [n=30; conventional treatment + 100 mg (49/51 mg) of sacubitril/valsartan]. Patients were assessed at three time points: 1 month after discharge (T1), 3 months after discharge (T3), and 6 months after discharge (T6). Two-dimensional ultrasound images were routinely collected, two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging was applied to calculate the left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV-GLS) rate for both groups, and LV-PSL analysis was used for the assessment of myocardial work, including global work index (GWI), global constructive work (GCW), global wasted work, and global work efficiency. The results at the three follow-up visits were compared with the predischarge results (baseline, T0). Results: Compared with the values at T0, the LV-GLS and left ventricular myocardial work index (LVMWI) values increased in both the observation and control groups at T1, T3, and T6, with GWI and GCW showing significantly greater improvement in the observation group at T6 (GWI: 1,204±336 vs. 987±417 mmHg%, P=0.03; GCW: 1,401±348 vs. 1,206±356 mmHg%, P=0.04). Survival analysis revealed that the overall incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P=0.03). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis including GCW, GWI, GLS, and left ventricular eject fraction (LVEF), GCW emerged as the only independent predictor of occurrence of MACEs (odds ratio =1.08; 95% CI: 0.63-0.93; P<0.001). Conclusions: Sacubitril/valsartan and dapagliflozin combination therapy led to a moderate improvement of cardiac function in patients with post-MI heart failure (P-MI-HF) compared to treatment with sacubitril/valsartan alone. Moreover, LV-PSL analysis can be used to assess the early prognosis of patients with P-MI-HF.

Perioperative Management of Novel Pharmacotherapies for Heart Failure and Pulmonary Hypertension.

Heart failure (HF) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) are increasingly prevalent comorbidities in patients presenting for noncardiac surgery. The unique pathophysiology and pharmacotherapies associated with these syndromes have important perioperative implications. As new medications for HF and PH emerge, it is imperative that anesthesiologists and other perioperative providers understand their mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, and potential adverse effects. We present an overview of the novel HF and PH pharmacotherapies and strategies for their perioperative management.

Early Initiation of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Renal Dysfunction: An Analysis of the TRANSITION Study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and renal dysfunction (RD) is challenging owing to the risk of further deterioration in renal function, especially after acute decompensated HF (ADHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the effect of RD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of ≥30 to <60 mL/min/1.73 m2) on initiation, up-titration, and tolerability of sacubitril/valsartan in hemodynamically stabilized patients with HFrEF admitted for ADHF (RD, n = 476; non-RD, n = 483). At week 10, the target dose of sacubitril/valsartan (97/103 mg twice daily) was achieved by 42% patients in RD subgroup vs 54% in non-RD patients (P < .001). Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with greater estimated glomerular filtration rate improvements in RD subgroup than non-RD (change from baseline least squares mean 4.1 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% confidence interval 2.2-6.1, P < .001). Cardiac biomarkers improved significantly in both subgroups; however, compared with the RD subgroup, the improvement was greater in those without RD (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, -28.6% vs -44.8%, high-sensitivity troponin T -20.3% vs -33.9%) (P < .001). Patients in the RD subgroup compared with those without RD experienced higher rates of hyperkalemia (16.3% vs 6.5%, P < .001), investigator-reported cardiac failure (9.7% vs 5.6%, P = .029), and renal impairment (6.4% vs 2.1%, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with HFrEF and concomitant RD hospitalized for ADHF tolerated early initiation of sacubitril/valsartan and showed significant improvements in estimated glomerular filtration rate and cardiac biomarkers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02661217.

The current best drug treatment for hypertensive heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

More than 90 % of patients developing heart failure (HF) have hypertension. The most frequent concomitant conditions are type-2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, atrial fibrillation, and coronary disease. HF outcome research focuses on decreasing mortality and preventing hospitalization for worsening HF syndrome. All drugs that decrease these HF endpoints lower blood pressure. Current drug treatments for HF are (i) angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, (ii) selected beta-blockers, (iii) steroidal and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and (iv) sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. For various reasons, these drug treatments were first studied in HF patients with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Subsequently, they have been investigated in HF patients with a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, HFpEF) of mostly hypertensive etiology, and with modest benefits largely assessed on top of background treatment with the drugs already proven effective in HFrEF. Additionally, diuretics are given on symptomatic indications. Patients with HFpEF may have diastolic dysfunction but also systolic dysfunction visualized by lack of longitudinal shortening. Considering the totality of evidence and the overall need for antihypertensive treatment and/or treatment of hypertensive complications in almost all HF patients, the principal drug treatment of HF appears to be the same regardless of LVEF. Rather than LVEF-guided treatment of HF, treatment of HF should be directed by symptoms (related to the level of fluid retention), signs (tachycardia), severity (NYHA functional class), and concomitant diseases and conditions. All HF patients should be given all the drug classes mentioned above if well tolerated.