Isovolumic Contraction Velocity In Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction And Effect Of Sacubitril/valsartan: The PROVE-HF Study
Alaa M. Omar,Sean Murphy,Michael Felker,Ileana Piña,Javed Butler,Yuxi Liu,Reza Mohebi,Jonathan Ward,Kristin Williamson,Scott D. Solomon,James Januzzi,Johannita Contreras
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2023.10.009
IF: 6.592
2024-01-01
Journal of Cardiac Failure
Abstract:Introduction The load dependent left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) has been the cornerstone of systolic function assessment, yet its inherent limitations highlight the need for alternative prognostic measures of myocardial remodeling. We assessed the value of tissue-Doppler derived mitral annular isovolumic contraction velocity (ICV), a load independent measure of systolic function, in prediction of structural and functional cardiac changes after starting sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods Serial echocardiograms were performed at baseline and 6 and 12 months following sac/val initiation in HFrEF patients classified based on median pre-treatment ICV (high or low) and LVEF (high or low). The primary outcome was follow-up LV reverse remodeling, defined by LVEF recovery (from <35% at baseline to ≥35% at 12 months), left atrial volume index (LAVi), E/e’, and LV mass index (LVMi). Other outcomes included health status assessed by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Score (KCCQ-OSS) and prognostic biomarkers, including natriuretic peptide, troponin and soluble suppression of tumorigenesis-2 (sST2). Results Among 651 participants (64.6±12.4 years, 28% female, LVEF: 28.9±6.9%), LVEF improved in 364 (62%) while median ICV increased (4.6 [3.5, 6.1] vs. 4.9 [3.6, 6.4] cm/sec, p=0.005) following initiation of sac/val. Prediction of LVEF recovery at 1 year after sac/val was explored in three models: biomarker model (NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, and sST2), clinical model (age, sex, diabetes, hypertension, coronary artery disease, atrial arrhythmia, baseline KCCQ-OSS), and echocardiographic model (baseline LVEF, LVMi, LAVi, and E/e’). Addition of baseline ICV to any model in isolation or combination significantly increased the predictive ability for reverse remodeling. Baseline ICV/EF classification yielded 193 high-ICV/high-EF patients,128 with high-ICV/low-EF, 123 with low-ICV/high-EF, and 207 with low-ICV/low-EF. Low-ICV/low-EF patients had the most deleterious remodeling (suggested by worse LV volumes, LAVi, E/e’, and LVMi), worse health status, and worse biomarkers, high-ICV/high-EF had the best profiles; and other groups were intermediate (figure 1A-C). Significant shifts towards better ICV/EF profiles were noted post val/sac treatment compared to baseline (Figure 1D), with doubling of high-ICV/high-EF [241(60%) vs. 123(31%)] and 78% reduction of low-ICV/low-EF [28(7%) vs. 125(32%)]. Conclusions In HFrEF, ICV represents an independent predictor of cardiac reverse remodeling and biomarkers after treatment with sac/val. ICV changes may be used for assessment of treatment response in HFrEF.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems