↓ Skip to main content

Which heart failure patients profit from natriuretic peptide guided therapy? A meta‐analysis from individual patient data of randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Heart Failure, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Which heart failure patients profit from natriuretic peptide guided therapy? A meta‐analysis from individual patient data of randomized trials
Published in
European Journal of Heart Failure, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/ejhf.401
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

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. 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). 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.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 15%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 24 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 February 2024.
All research outputs
#6,515,521
of 29,695,593 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Heart Failure
#1,555
of 3,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,782
of 292,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Heart Failure
#16
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,695,593 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,422 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.