Why the study?
Few studies have directly compared the prognostic value of LVEF and NT-proBNP in patients with HFrEF who have initiated guideline-directed medical therapy.
Cohort (n=6,168)
Yes
Effect estimate: Δconcordance index: +0.129 (95% CI 0.118-0.141)
p-value: p=<0.005
Among patients with HFrEF on guideline-directed medical therapy, NT-proBNP measurement offers substantially greater prognostic value for predicting hospitalization or death compared to LVEF.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have directly compared the prognostic value of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced EF who have initiated guideline-directed medical therapy. This study sought to assess the combined prognostic value of follow-up LVEF and NT-proBNP measurements taken following initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with HF with reduced EF. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study (2009-2024) conducted at a large, integrated health system included 6168 patients who had a diagnosis of HF with reduced EF (LVEF ≤40%) along with available LVEF and NT-proBNP measurements at ~9 months following diagnosis, which was defined as the study baseline. A composite outcome of HF hospitalization or all-cause death was assessed. RESULTS: A large majority of patients were on at least 2 guideline-directed medical therapy medications at baseline. The median LVEF was 36% (interquartile range, 27-46), and the median NT-proBNP was 2161 pg/mL (interquartile range, 610-7350). Higher NT-proBNP levels were, in general, associated with a higher adjusted 1-year risk of the composite outcome across the spectrum of LVEF, with even mildly to moderately elevated NT-proBNP levels (125-1000 pg/mL) associated with incremental risk. Both LVEF and NT-proBNP offered independent prognostic information, but NT-proBNP had a much stronger association with the composite outcome and a much greater ability to discriminate between patients based on risk than LVEF (Δconcordance index: +0.129; 95% CI, 0.118-0.141), with LVEF offering only minimal prognostic value beyond NT-proBNP. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HF with reduced EF who have initiated guideline-directed medical therapy, NT-proBNP may offer much greater prognostic value than LVEF, with even mildly to moderately elevated NT-proBNP levels portending meaningful incremental risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kodur et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=6,168). Follow-up NT-proBNP measurement vs. Follow-up LVEF measurement was evaluated on Composite of HF hospitalization or all-cause death (Δconcordance index: +0.129, 95% CI 0.118-0.141, p=<0.005).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: