Abstract
Aims
The poor control of symptoms in patients with advanced heart failure with reduced ejection function (HFrEF) can limit the functionality of patients. Sacubitril–valsartan, compared with enalapril, has been shown to reduce mortality and hospitalization, and nowadays, there is still little evidence about the improvement on functionality. The aim of our study is to analyse the improvement of the functional class and the 6 min walking test (6MWT) in patients with multiple pathologies and advanced heart failure.
Methods and results
From September 2016 to March 2018, 65 multimorbidity patients with severe symptomatic HFrEF were initiated to receive sacubitril–valsartan. Mean age was 78.6 ± 7.4 years, and 68% were male. The Charlson co‐morbidity index was 8 points. Seventy‐four per cent had New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Class IV. After the treatment, patients were able to achieve 55.68 m or more on 6MWT, and 91% presented an improvement in the NYHA functional class.
Conclusions
Sacubitril–valsartan relieves symptoms and improves functional class prognostic risk of patients with advanced HFrEF and co‐morbidity.
Keywords: Sacubitril–valsartan, Elderly, Multimorbidity, Six‐minute walking test, NYHA, MAGGIC score
Introduction
Heart failure (HF) is a progressive illness that is highly prevalent among the elderly. Multimorbidity, defined as the co‐occurrence of two or more chronic conditions, is a common condition in adults, and the prevalence increases with age.1 Multimorbidity increases the risk of adverse outcomes such as declining functional status, hospitalizations, and death,1 the same as HF.2, 3 There is important recognition to consider co‐morbidity in treatment decision because co‐morbidity in multimorbidity patients with HF may worsen its management and prognosis.4
The PARADIGM‐HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with an ACE‐Inhibitor to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure) trial5 showed that sacubitril–valsartan reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for HF. But there is little evidence regarding the study of the functionality of patients after treatment,6, 7 and there is little evidence of the drug in elderly patients with multimorbidity.8
The aim of this study is to evaluate if the use of sacubitril–valsartan improves functionality in multimorbidity patients with HF and the factors and prognostic tests in elderly patients with advanced HF and multimorbidity.
Methods
Study population
In this observational study, we included all HF with reduced ejection function (HFrEF) patients assessed in the Chronic‐Multimorbidity Unit of the Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra in the period from September 2016 to March 2018.
The Chronic‐Multimorbidity Unit performs the assessment and monitoring of patients with two or more chronic medical conditions (ischaemic cardiomyopathy, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, HF, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia).
We included patients with HFrEF diagnosis in based on the guidelines of European Society of Cardiology on 2016 and who had dyspnoea at rest or with minimal or slight limitation on physical activity.
The clinical history data were acquired in relation to the data obtained in the usual medical visit of each patient. Follow‐up clinical visits were made on the basis of the clinical evolution of the patient.
Complete medical history with clinical variables (blood pressure, medication, results of echocardiography), laboratory values (creatinine, albumin, glycosylated haemoglobin [HbA1c], troponin T, brain natriuretic peptide levels), Barthel index, and 6 min walking test (6MWT) was obtained at the beginning and end of the study period. The New York Heart Association (NYHA) scale assessment was performed in each of the consultations made throughout the follow‐up. The MAGGIC (Meta‐Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure) score was calculated in the first consultation and prior to the analysis of the study. We compared all of these variables before and after sacubitril–valsartan treatment.
All patients provided informed consent, and the protocol was approved by the research ethics committee in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and national regulations.
Statistical analysis
Normally distributed continuous variables are reported as means with standard deviations and non‐normally distributed continuous variables as medians. Categorical variables are summarized as frequencies and percentages and were compared using χ 2. We analysed before and after group differences using Student's t‐test for continuous variables and χ 2 test for categorical values. We considered a P‐value < 0.05 to be statistically significant. We performed all analyses with STATA, Version 12.0 (Texas).
Results
Between September 2016 and March 2018, 65 patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction mean was 37%) severely symptomatic were initiated to sacubitril–valsartan treatment and were followed up by the Chronic‐Multimorbidity Unit. The mean age was 78.6 ± 7.4 years, and 68% of the patients were male. The median Charlson co‐morbidity index was 8 points. Chronic kidney disease was the most common co‐morbidity (86%), presenting in 58% of patients with moderate/severe kidney disease. The most common aetiology of HFrEF was ischaemia (52%); 66% of the patients received previous treatment with angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, and 98% received diuretic treatment. Patients' basal characteristics are described in Table 1.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of patients prior to the start of sacubitril–valsartan
| Characteristicsa | n = 65 |
|---|---|
| Age, years | 78.6 ± 7.4 |
| Sex (M/F) | 44/21 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 29.4 ± 5.6 |
| Mortality, n (%) | 13 (20) |
| Charlson co‐morbidity index | 8 |
| Barthel index | 80 |
| Clinical features of heart failure | |
| Left ventricular ejection fraction (%, SD) | 37 ± 2.3 |
| Pulmonary blood pressure (mmHg) | 46.1 ± 16.1 |
| Aetiology of heart failure, n (%) | |
| Hypertensive | 14 (22) |
| Ischaemic | 34 (52) |
| Valvular | 8 (12) |
| Mix of ischaemic/valvular | 9 (14) |
| Medical history, n (%) | |
| Hypertension | 39 (65) |
| Diabetes | 44 (68) |
| Atrial fibrillation | 46 (71) |
| Myocardial infarction | 34 (52) |
| COPD | 21 (32) |
| Chronic kidney disease, n (%) | 56 (86) |
| Stage 2 | 8 (12) |
| Stage 3a | 19 (29) |
| Stage 3b | 21 (32) |
| Stage 4 | 17 (26) |
| Treatment, n (%) | |
| Pre‐use ACE‐I or ARB | 43 (66) |
| Beta‐blocker | 48 (74) |
| Mineralocorticoid agonist | 28 (43) |
| Diuretic | 61 (98) |
| Digitalis | 18 (28) |
ACE‐I, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor; ARB, angiotensin receptor blocker; BMI, body mass index; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; IQR, inter‐quartile range.
Plus–minus values are means ± SD.
Treatment with sacubitril–valsartan was well tolerated without side effects. The mean treatment time was 286 days. Seventy‐five per cent of patients received the maximum dose of 24/26 mg every 12 h.
There was a significant difference of 55.68 m or more in the 6MWT after initiating sacubitril–valsartan (223.44 vs. 279.12, P < 0.001, 95% CI 74.26–27.07) (Table 2).
Table 2.
Comparison of the analytical and clinical characteristics before and after the start of sacubitril–valsartan
| Characteristicsa | Before | After | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical | |||
| Blood pressure (mmHg) | 125.8 ± 18.8 | 127.7 ± 21.7 | 0.43 |
| 6 min walking test (m) | 223.44 ± 93.55 | 279.12 ± 104.81 | <0.001 |
| NYHA scale, n (%) | 0.002 | ||
| Class II | 1 (1) | 33 (51) | |
| Class III | 16 (25) | 26 (40) | |
| Class IV | 48 (74) | 6 (9) | |
| MAGGIC score, n (%) | 38.14 | 28.75 | <0.001 |
| MAGGIC score Risk Group 1 | 1 (1) | 2 (3) | |
| MAGGIC score Risk Group 2 | 1 (1) | 3 (4) | |
| MAGGIC score Risk Group 3 | 1 (1) | 9 (14) | |
| MAGGIC score Risk Group 4 | 11 (16) | 17 (26) | |
| MAGGIC score Risk Group 5 | 13 (20) | 16 (25) | |
| MAGGIC score Risk Group 6 | 38 (61) | 18 (28) | |
| Treatment (mg/dL) | |||
| Mineralocorticoid agonist | 29.01 | 26.34 | |
| Diuretic | 78.77 | 96.62 | |
| Analytics | |||
| Serum creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.62 ± 0.58 | 1.66 ± 0.58 | 0.53 |
| Serum troponin T (pg/mL) | 45.07 ± 48.17 | 36.22 ± 30.45 | 0.03 |
| Serum HbA1c (%) | 7.18 ± 1.7 | 7.04 ± 1.6 | 0.83 |
| Serum albumin (mg/dL) | 3.89 ± 0.43 | 3.87 ± 0.36 | 0.44 |
| Serum BNP (pg/mL) | 565.5 ± 579.49 | 654.21 ± 1292.2 | 0.36 |
BNP, brain natriuretic peptide.
Plus–minus values are means ± SD.
Prior to the start of the drug treatment, most of the patients had NYHA IV (74%), followed by NYHA III (25%); at the end of the study, an improvement of NYHA was observed, being most frequently NYHA II and III (51% and 40%, P = 0.002) (Table 2).
There were no statistically significant differences between the mean values of the MAGGIC score (38.14 vs. 28.75). Patients were classified according to the six risk groups of the MAGGIC score. Prior to the treatment, 61% of patients were in Group 6 risk, followed by 20% in Group 5. After sacubitril–valsartan treatment, we observed a redistribution of patients between Groups 3, 4, 5, and 6 (14%, 26%, 25%, and 28%, respectively; P < 0.001) (Table 2).
On the analytical values, we found statistically significant differences in troponin level reduction (45.07 vs. 36.22, P = 0.03). There were no statistically significant differences between creatinine, albumin, and HbA1c levels. There were also no differences between blood pressure levels (Table 2).
Discussion
In our population, sacubitril–valsartan is a major breakthrough in HF treatment because it has shown benefit on functionality and risk reduction in patients with HFrEF in advanced functional class and multimorbidity.
The implication of different mechanisms of sacubitril–valsartan in the improvement of exercise capacity has been postulated (effect of natriuretic peptides, inhibition of neprilysin, modulation of endorphin–enkephalin system), but the effect of the same remains unclear yet.In recent studies, sacubitril–valsartan improves the functionality of patients through the improvement of domestic activities.7 Similar studies show an improvement in the distance travelled in the 6MWT.6 However, the main difference in these studies is that up to 50% of patients had advanced functional class (NYHA III/IV), unlike in our population, in which our entire study population presented with an advanced functional class. Moreover, 75% of patients only reached the maximum dose of 24/26 mg every 12 h, similar to the results found in the literature.6
It is interesting to note that the clinical benefit observed in our population despite age, concordant with sacubitril–valsartan, when compared with enalapril, in the study PARADIGM‐HF, was consistent in patients > 75 years.8
In our population, we have observed a decrease in the MAGGIC score after the start of the drug, which is equivalent to a decrease in the risk of cardiovascular death, as was shown in the PARADIGM‐HF study regarding patients on treatment with enalapril.9
Having no control group and the limited number of patients can be some of the limitations of this study. Sacubitril–valsartan, in real life, can help in the correct management of patients with HFrEF and co‐morbidity, even in advanced stages of the disease, as well as improve the functionality and therefore the quality of life of our patients, also improving the prognosis, not simply with the goal of increasing the longevity of patients.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Rodil Fraile, R. , Malafarina, V. , and Tiberio López, G. (2018) Sacubitril–valsartan in heart failure and multimorbidity patients. ESC Heart Failure, 5: 956–959. 10.1002/ehf2.12338.
References
- 1. Anderson G. Chronic Care: Making the Case for Ongoing Care. Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood Foundation; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 2. Chioncel O, Lainscak M, Seferovic PM, Anker SD, Crespo‐Leiro MG, Harjola VP. Epidemiology and one‐year outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure and preserved, mid‐range and reduced ejection fraction: an analysis of the ESC Heart Failure Long‐Term Registry. Eur J Heart Fail 2017; 19: 1574–1585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Chamberlain AM, St Sauver JL, Gerber Y, Manemann SM, Boyd CM, Dunlay SM, Rocca WA, Finney Rutten LJ, Jiang R, Weston SA, Roger VL. Multimorbidity in heart failure: a community perspective. Am J Med 2015; 128: 38–45. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Manemann SM, Chamberlain AM, Boyd CM, Gerber Y, Dunlay SM, Weston SA, Jiang R, Roger VL. Multimorbidity in heart failure: impact on outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 2016; 64: 1469–1474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. McMurray JJ, Packer M, Desai AS, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, Rouleau JL, Shi VC, Solomon SD, Swedberg K, Zile MR, PARADIGM‐HF Investigators and Committees . Angiotensin‐neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 993–1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Beltran P, Palau P, Domínguez E, Faraudo M, Núñez E, Guri O. Sacubitril/valsartan and short‐term changes in the 6‐minute walk test: a pilot study. Int J Cardiol 2018; 252: 136–139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Chandra A, Lewis EF, Claggett BL, Desai AS, Packer M, Zile MR, Swedberg K, Rouleau JL, Shi VC, Lefkowitz MP, Katova T, McMurray JJV, Solomon SD. The effects of sacubitril/valsartan on physical and social activity limitations in heart failure patients: the PARADIGM‐HF Trial. JAMA Cardiol 2018; 3: 498–505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Jhund PS, Fu M, Bayram E, Chen CH, Negrusz‐Kawecka M, Rosenthal A, Desai AS, Lefkowitz MP, Rizkala AR, Rouleau JL, Shi VC, Solomon SD, Swedberg K, Zile MR, McMurray J, Packer M, PARADIGM‐HF Investigators and Committees . Efficacy and safety of LCZ696 (sacubitril–valsartan) according to age: insights from PARADIGM‐HF. Eur Heart J 2015; 36: 2576–2584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Simpson J, Jhund PS, Silva Cardoso J, Martinez F, Mosterd A, Ramires F, Rizkala AR, Senni M, Squire I, Gong J, Lefkowitz MP, Shi VC, Desai AS, Rouleau JL, Swedberg K, Zile MR, McMurray J, Packer M, Solomon SD, PARADIGM‐HF Investigators and Committees . Comparing LCZ696 with enalapril according to baseline risk using the MAGGIC and EMPHASIS‐HF risk scores: an analysis of mortality and morbidity in PARADIGM‐HF. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66: 2059–2071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]