Vericiguat in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients on guideline-directed medical therapy: Insights from a 6-month real-world study

Jiangyue Tian,Mei Dong,Xiaoqian Sun,Xiaoning Jia,Guihua Zhang,Yanling Zhang,Zongwei Lin,Jie Xiao,Xinyu Zhang,Huixia Lu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2024.132524
2024-09-05
Abstract:Background: Vericiguat has demonstrated efficacy in improving the prognosis of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following recent clinical deterioration. However, its real-world impact on reducing N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels and improving ventricular remodeling remains uncertain in stable HFrEF patients receiving guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) over the short term. Methods: This multicenter, observational cohort study included 200 HFrEF patients. Patients were grouped based on their preference for vericiguat use. We evaluated the impact of vericiguat on HFrEF patients by analyzing the difference in the proportion of patients with NT-proBNP levels ≤1000 pg/ml between two groups after a 6-month follow-up, using logistic regression and covariance analysis. Changes in echocardiographic parameters, left ventricular reverse remodeling (LVRR) ratio, and safety outcomes were also evaluated. Results: During the 6-month follow-up, 105 patients (82.68 %) in the vericiguat group and 46 patients (63.01 %) in the control group reached the primary endpoint. Multivariate logistic regression confirmed vericiguat as a significant factor in reducing NT-proBNP levels (Model 2: odds ratio (OR) = 2.67, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.24-5.77, P = 0.013), but it showed no significant association with LVRR (Model 2: OR = 0.52, 95 % CI: 0.24-1.13, P = 0.097). The safety analysis indicated a higher incidence of mild to moderate gastrointestinal symptoms in the vericiguat group compared to the control group (23.62 % vs. 2.74 %, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Vericiguat significantly reduced NT-proBNP levels in patients with chronic HErEF under GDMT but was ineffective for LVRR during the 6-month follow-up.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?