(NT-pro)BNP-guided therapy compared with symptom-guided therapy reduced mortality in HFrEF patients (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.62-0.97; P=0.03), but not in HFpEF patients.
Meta-Analysis (n=2,137)
Yes
2,137 heart failure patients from eight randomized trials comparing (NT-pro)BNP-guided versus symptom-guided therapy.
(NT-pro)BNP-guided therapy vs Symptom-guided therapy
Mortality in HFrEF patients — HR 0.78 (0.62-0.97), p=0.03
Hazard Ratio: 0.78 (95% CI 0.62–0.97)
p-value: p=0.03
AIMS: Previous analyses suggest that heart failure (HF) therapy guided by (N-terminal pro-)brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) might be dependent on left ventricular ejection fraction, age and co-morbidities, but the reasons remain unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: To determine interactions between (NT-pro)BNP-guided therapy and HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF) ≤45%; HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), n = 1731 vs. preserved EF EF > 45%; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), n = 301 and co-morbidities (hypertension, renal failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, cerebrovascular insult, peripheral vascular disease) on outcome, individual patient data (n = 2137) from eight NT-proBNP guidance trials were analysed using Cox-regression with multiplicative interaction terms. Endpoints were mortality and admission because of HF. Whereas in HFrEF patients (NT-pro)BNP-guided compared with symptom-guided therapy resulted in lower mortality hazard ratio (HR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62-0.97, P = 0.03 and fewer HF admissions (HR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.67-0.97, P = 0.02), no such effect was seen in HFpEF (mortality: HR = 1.22, 95% CI 0.76-1.96, P = 0.41; HF admissions HR = 1.01, 95% CI 0.67-1.53, P = 0.97; interactions P < 0.02). Age (74 ± 11 years) interacted with treatment strategy allocation independently of EF regarding mortality (P = 0.02), but not HF admission (P = 0.54). The interaction of age and mortality was explained by the interaction of treatment strategy allocation with co-morbidities. In HFpEF, renal failure provided strongest interaction (P < 0.01; increased risk of (NT-pro)BNP-guided therapy if renal failure present), whereas in HFrEF patients, the presence of at least two of the following co-morbidities provided strongest interaction (P < 0.01; (NT-pro)BNP-guided therapy beneficial only if none or one of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, cardiovascular insult, or peripheral vascular disease present). (NT-pro)BNP-guided therapy was harmful in HFpEF patients without hypertension (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The benefits of therapy guided by (NT-pro)BNP were present in HFrEF only. Co-morbidities seem to influence the response to (NT-pro)BNP-guided therapy and may explain the lower efficacy of this approach in elderly patients.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Rocca et al. (Wed,) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=2,137). (NT-pro)BNP-guided therapy vs. Symptom-guided therapy was evaluated on Mortality in HFrEF patients (HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.97, p=0.03). (NT-pro)BNP-guided therapy compared with symptom-guided therapy reduced mortality in HFrEF patients (HR 0.78; 95% CI 0.62-0.97; P=0.03), but not in HFpEF patients.
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a216313589de9df3302fbd2 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.401
Hans‐Peter Brunner‐La Rocca
Heart Failure & Transplant
Luc W.M. Eurlings
VieCuri Medisch Centrum
Mark Richards
Heart Failure & Transplant
European Journal of Heart Failure
Massachusetts General Hospital
Karolinska Institutet
Duke Medical Center
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...