The role of sacubitril/valsartan in the management of cardiac resynchronization therapy non‐responders: a retrospective analysis

AIMS: Optimal medical therapy after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation is important in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. Although sacubitril/valsartan (SV) is a mainstay in the treatment of HFrEF, its efficacy in the management of CRT non‐responders has not been emphasized. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of SV in CRT non‐responders. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed 175 HFrEF patients who received CRT implantation between January 2010 and January 2019. CRT responder was defined as a decrease in left ventricular (LV) end‐systolic volume > 15% on echocardiography 6 months after implantation. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Patients underwent follow‐up for HF rehospitalization, heart transplantation (HT), implantation of a LV assistant device (LVAD), cardiac death, and all‐cause death. Among the study population, 164 patients were evaluated for CRT response; 54 (33%) were CRT non‐responders. Four patients (6%) who received SV before CRT implantation were excluded, leaving 50 patients for analysis. Twenty‐two non‐responders (44%) received SV. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between SV users and non‐users (n = 28). During follow‐up, SV users had significantly lower incidence of all‐cause death [1 (5%) vs. 10 (36%), P = 0.022] and tended to have lower HF rehospitalization [6 (27%) vs. 16 (57%), P = 0.068] and cardiac death (including HT and LVAD implant) [2 (9%) vs. 10 (36%), P = 0.064]. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis revealed that SV use was associated with a lower risk of cardiac death (including HT and LVAD implant) (log‐rank P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: SV treatment was related to a lower incidence of cardiac death including HT and LVAD implant in CRT non‐responders. The optimization of HF management, including SV, should be considered in CRT non‐responders.