2021
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-021-03189-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of SAcubitril/Valsartan on left vEntricular ejection fraction and on the potential indication for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in primary prevention: the SAVE-ICD study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
1
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
17
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“… 15 A favourable LV reverse remodelling seems to be the main responsible mechanism, 18 as Martens et al 19 suggested after studying 151 patients with HFrEF, in whom they observed a lower degree of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, resulting in less ICD intervention rate, over a mean follow-up of 365 days. Also, Guerra et al 20 conducted a prospective study in a similar cohort treated with sacubitril/valsartan for 6 months, showing LV reverse remodelling and an improvement of LVEF from 28.3 ± 5.6% to 32.2 ± 6.5% ( P < 0.001), with 5.3% arrhythmias in the first 6 months of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“… 15 A favourable LV reverse remodelling seems to be the main responsible mechanism, 18 as Martens et al 19 suggested after studying 151 patients with HFrEF, in whom they observed a lower degree of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, resulting in less ICD intervention rate, over a mean follow-up of 365 days. Also, Guerra et al 20 conducted a prospective study in a similar cohort treated with sacubitril/valsartan for 6 months, showing LV reverse remodelling and an improvement of LVEF from 28.3 ± 5.6% to 32.2 ± 6.5% ( P < 0.001), with 5.3% arrhythmias in the first 6 months of treatment with sacubitril/valsartan.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Such discrepancy from our results may be ascribed to the short followup (3 months) and the low dose of S/V achieved by patients enrolled in the study by Almufleh et al [29]. Due to the significant improvement in LVEF in non-IHD patients (9.5% median increase in 3D LVEF), it could be speculated that device (ICD or CRT) implantation for primary prevention and/or heart transplantation or LV assist device (LVAD) implantation could be prevented or at least delayed in these patients after the introduction of S/V therapy at the maximum tolerated dose, as recently suggested [30].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…We previously published from PROVE-HF that up to 62% of study participants meeting criteria for ICD implantation were no longer eligible after 12 months of treatment with Sac/Val (22). Similarly, in the SAVE-ICD study (23), Guerra and colleague found that Sac/Val improved LVEF after 6 months of treatment and prevented ICD implantation in 1 out of 4 patients with HFrEF. These data should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating but clearly support the need to optimize GDMT with Sac/Val prior to consideration of decision-making regarding ICD.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%