| 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 |
Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca, Luc Eurlings, A Mark Richards, James L Januzzi, Matthias E Pfisterer, Ulf Dahlström, Yigal M Pinto, Patric Karlström, Hans Erntell, Rudolf Berger, Hans Persson, Christopher M O'Connor, Deddo Moertl, Hanna K Gaggin, Christopher M Frampton, M Gary Nicholls, Richard W Troughton |
| 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.
Mendeley demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| 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 | 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% |