Trial reportCardiovascular & hematological disorders drug targets2026
Impacts of Sacubitril-Valsartan versus Valsartan on Left Ventricular Remodeling and Cardiac Function in Patients with Ischemic Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Double-blinded Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Cardiovascular & hematological disorders drug targets, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) is a combination medication primarily used to treat heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This randomized controlled trial (RCT) assessed the impacts of SAC/VAL compared with valsartan (VAL) on left ventricular (LV) remodeling, clinical outcomes, and cardiac function in patients with HFrEF.
methodsA single-blinded run-in phase and a double-blinded treatment phase were conducted at Imam Hospital (Ahvaz, Iran) among 106 patients (SAC/VAL group: n=54; VAL group=52). Patients were randomly assigned to receive a combination of SAC/VAL (up-titrated to the target dosage of 200 mg, twice daily) or VAL (up-titrated to 160 mg, twice daily) for a six-month of intervention. Patients' clinical, demographic, and echocardiographic data were collected before and after the intervention.
resultsAfter a six-month intervention, statistically significant mean differences were detected in various echocardiographic parameters (e.g., LV end-systolic volume, LV ejection fraction, and LV end-diastolic volume) within each group and between the two groups. Significant mean differences were noted in the six-minute walk test, serum levels of blood urea nitrogen, aspartate aminotransferase, sodium, creatinine, alanine aminotransferase, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, and scores of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire in post-intervention assessments within each group and between the two groups (P <0.05). There was a substantial within-group difference in the frequency of the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class from pre- to post-intervention (P <0.05). DISCUSSION: This study revealed that SAC/VAL exhibited superior efficacy compared to VAL. However, the follow-up period was relatively short, and the potential risks associated with the prolonged administration of this medication have not been thoroughly evaluated.
conclusionThis RCT indicated that the combination of SAC/VAL had better therapeutic effects than VAL on LV remodeling, clinical outcomes, and cardiac function in patients with ischemic HFrEF. These findings may help refine treatment priorities for patients with HFrEF and improve the quality of their care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40814880What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.