目的 分析沙库巴曲缬沙坦相比缬沙坦对射血分数保留心衰（HFpEF）患者的临床疗效及预后。方法? 选取 2018 年 12 月至2019 年 12 月苏州市人民医院收治的 60 例 HFpEF 患者为研究对象，按照随机数字表法将患者分为对照组和观察组，每组患者 30 例。对照组采用缬沙坦为基础的常规心衰治疗药物，观察组使用沙库巴曲缬沙坦为基础的治疗方案，随访 6 个月，对两组患者治疗效果及再次住院进行比较。结果? 治疗前，两组患者 N 末端 B 型脑钠肽（NT-proBNP）、6 min 步行试验距离比较差异无统计学意义（t=0.754、0.532，P=0.454、0.597）；治疗后，观察组 NT-proBNP（521.5±123.2）pg/mL 低于对照组（612.5±103.3）pg/mL，6 min 步行试验距离（550.3±52.4）m 长于对照组（393.4±61.5）m，组间比较差异有统计学意义（t=3.100，10.636，P=0.003、0.000）。观察患者心功能分级改善一个级别及以上有 20 例（66.67%）高于对照组 10 例（33.33%），差异有统计学意义（χ2=6.67，P=0.001）；观察组患者治疗后因心衰再次住院有 2 例（6.67%）低于对照组 7 例（23.33%）（χ2=3.272，P=0.021）。结论? 对射血分数保留心衰患者采取沙库巴曲缬沙坦治疗能取得良好效果，其能使患者的临床症状及预后得到改善，因此，该治疗方法具有优势，值得推广应用。
Objective? To analyze the clinical efficacy and prognosis of sacubatrivalsartan compared with valsartan in patients with ejection fraction preserved heart failure（HFpEF）. Methods? A total of 60 patients with HFpEF admitted to Suzhou Ninth People's Hospital from December 2018 to December 2019 were selected as the study subjects，and the patients were divided into the control group and the observation group according to the random number table method，with 30 patients in each group. The control group was treated with valsartan based conventional treatment drugs for heart failure，and the observation group was treated with the treatment scheme based on sarkubatrovalsartan. The treatment effect and readmission of the two groups were compared after 6 months of follow-up. Results? Before treatment，there was no significant difference in N-terminal B-type brain natriuretic peptide（NT-proBNP）and 6-minute walking test distance between the two groups（t=0.754，0.532， P=0.454，0.597）；after treatment，the NT-proBNP（521.5±123.2）pg/mL of the observation group was lower than that of the control group（612.5±103.3）pg/mL，and the 6-minute walking test distance（550.3±52.4）m was longer than that of the control group（393.4±61.5）m，and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant（t=3.100，10.636，P=0.003，0.000）. There were 20 cases（66.67%）whose cardiac function grade improved by one level or above，which was higher than that of 10 cases（33.33%）in the control group，and the difference was statistically significant（χ2=6.67，P=0.001）；2 cases（6.67%）of the observation group were hospitalized again due to heart failure after treatment，which was lower than 7 cases（23.33%）of the control group（χ2=3.272，P=0.021）. Conclusion? The treatment of patients with preserved ejection fraction heart failure can achieve good results，which can improve the clinical symptoms and prognosis of patients. Therefore，the advantages of this treatment method are worthy of promotion and application.