clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01822795.

Rationale: The diagnostic concordance between transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC)-versus surgical lung biopsy (SLB) as the current gold standard-in interstitial lung disease (ILD) cases requiring histology remains controversial. Objectives: To assess diagnostic concordance between TBLC and SLB sequentially performed in the same patients, the diagnostic yield of both techniques, and subsequent changes in multidisciplinary assessment (MDA) decisions. Methods: A two-center prospective study included patients with ILD with a nondefinite usual interstitial pneumonia pattern (on highresolution computed tomography scan) confirmed at a first MDA. Patients underwent TBLC immediately followed by video-assisted thoracoscopy for SLB at the same anatomical locations. After open reading of both sample types by local pathologists and final diagnosis at a second MDA (MDA2), anonymized TBLC and SLB slides were blindly assessed by an external expert pathologist (T.V.C.). Kappaconcordance coefficients and percentage agreement were computed for: TBLC versus SLB, MDA2 versus TBLC, MDA2 versus SLB, and blinded pathology versus routine pathology. Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-one patients were included. The median TBLC biopsy size (longest axis) was 7 mm (interquartile range, 5-8 mm). SLB biopsy sizes averaged 46.1 6 13.8 mm. Concordance coefficients and percentage agreement were: TBLC versus SLB: k = 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.44), percentage agreement = 38% (95% CI, 18-62%); MDA2 versus TBLC: k = 0.31 (95% CI, 0.06-0.56), percentage agreement = 48% (95% CI, 26-70)%; MDA2 versus SLB: k = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.27-0.75), percentage agreement = 62% (95% CI, 38-82%); two pneumothoraces (9.5%) were recorded during TBLC. TBLC would have led to a different treatment if SLB was not performed in 11 of 21 (52%) of cases. Conclusions: Pathological results from TBLC and SLB were poorly concordant in the assessment of ILD. SLBs were more frequently concordant with the final diagnosis retained at MDA.

AimsSleep‐disordered breathing (SDB) is a highly prevalent co‐morbidity in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and can play a detrimental role in the pathophysiology course of CHF. However, the best way to manage SDB in CHF remains a matter of debate. Sacubitril–valsartan has been included in the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines as an alternative to angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors to further reduce the risk of progression of CHF, CHF hospitalization, and death in ambulatory patients. Sacubitril and valsartan are good candidates for correcting SDB of CHF patients because their known mechanisms of action are likely to counteract the pathophysiology of SDB in CHF.Methods and resultsThe ENTRESTO‐SAS trial is a 3‐month, multicentric, prospective, open‐label real‐life cohort study. Patients eligible for sacubitril–valsartan treatment (i.e. adults with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, who remain symptomatic despite optimal treatment with an angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor, a beta‐blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist) will be evaluated before and after 3 months of treatment (nocturnal ventilatory polygraphy, echocardiography, laboratory testing, and quality‐of‐life and SDB questionnaires). The primary outcome is the change in the Apnoea–Hypopnoea Index, before and after 3 months of treatment. One hundred twenty patients are required to detect a significant 20% improvement of the Apnoea–Hypopnoea Index with a power of 90% at an alpha risk of 5%.ConclusionsIn the context of the SERVE‐HF study, physicians are waiting for new trials and alternative therapies. We sought to assess in the ENTRESTO‐SAS trial whether sacubitril–valsartan could improve the outcome of SDB in CHF patients.