Does B-type natriuretic peptide-guided therapy improve outcomes in patients with chronic heart failure? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The natriuretic peptide system in heart failure: Diagnostic and therapeutic implications

Natriuretic peptides, which are activated in heart failure, play an important cardioprotective role. The most notable of the cardioprotective natriuretic peptides are atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), which are abundantly expressed and secreted in the atrium and ventricles, respectively, and C-type natriuretic peptide (CNP), which is expressed mainly in the vasculature, central nervous system, and bone. ANP and BNP exhibit antagonistic effects against angiotensin II via diuretic/natriuretic actions, vasodilatory actions, and inhibition of aldosterone secretion, whereas CNP is involved in the regulation of vascular tone and blood pressure, among other roles. ANP and BNP are of particular interest with respect to heart failure, as their levels, most notably BNP and N-terminal proBNP-a cleavage product produced when proBNP is processed to mature BNP-are increased in patients with heart failure. Furthermore, the identification of natriuretic peptides as sensitive markers of cardiac load has driven significant research into their physiological roles in cardiovascular homeostasis and disease, as well as their potential use as both biomarkers and therapeutics. In this review, I discuss the physiological functions of the natriuretic peptide family, with a particular focus on the basic research that has led to our current understanding of its roles in maintaining cardiovascular homeostasis, and the pathophysiological implications for the onset and progression of heart failure. The clinical significance and potential of natriuretic peptides as diagnostic and/or therapeutic agents are also discussed.

Biomarkers in Acute Heart Failure: Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment

Heart failure is a global health problem. An episode of acute heart failure (AHF) is a period of substantial morbidity and mortality with few advances in the management of an episode that have improved outcomes. The measurement of multiple biomarkers has become an integral adjunctive tool for the management of AHF. Many biomarkers are now well established in their ability to assist with diagnosis and prognostication of an AHF patient. There are also emerging biomarkers that are showing significant promise in the areas of diagnosis and prognosis. For improving the management of AHF, both established and novel biomarkers may assist in guiding medical therapy and subsequently improving outcomes. Thus, it is important to understand the different abilities and limitations of established and emerging biomarkers in AHF so that they may be correctly interpreted and integrated into clinical practice for AHF. This knowledge may improve the care of AHF patients. This review will summarize the evidence of both established and novel biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis and management in AHF so that the treating clinician may become more comfortable incorporating these biomarkers into clinical practice in an evidence-based manner.

Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

GUIDE-IT, the largest trial to date, published in August 2017, evaluating the effectiveness of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment of heart failure (HF), was stopped early for futility on a composite outcome. However, the reported effect sizes on individual outcomes of all-cause mortality and HF admissions are potentially clinically relevant.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to combine all available trial level evidence to determine if NP-guided treatment of HF reduces all-cause mortality and HF admissions in patients with HF.

STUDY SELECTION

Eight databases, no language restrictions, up to November 2017 were searched for all randomised controlled trials comparing NP-guided treatment versus clinical assessment alone in adult patients with HF. No language restrictions were applied. Publications were independently double screened and extracted. Fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted.

FINDINGS

89 papers were included, reporting 19 trials (4554 participants), average ages 62-80 years. Pooled risk ratio estimates for all-cause mortality (16 trials, 4063 participants) were 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.99 and 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89 for HF admissions (11 trials, 2822 participants). Sensitivity analyses, restricted to low risk of bias, produced similar estimates, but were no longer statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering all the evidence to date, the pooled effects suggest that NP-guided treatment is beneficial in reducing HF admissions and all-cause mortality. However, there is still insufficient high-quality evidence to make definitive recommendations on the use of NP-guided treatment in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Systematic Review Cochrane Database Number: CD008966.

BNP-Response to Acute Heart Failure Treatment Identifies High-Risk Population

BACKGROUND

Using serial measurements of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) has been proposed as a method to guide therapy for patients treated for acute decompensated heart failure. However, 20-47% of patients do not achieve the target BNP thresholds despite treatment. We hypothesised that "BNP unresponsive" patients represent a distinct group at high risk for poor outcomes and sought to examine the characteristics and outcomes of this group.

METHODS

In a retrospective study using electronic health record (EHR) data, we examined the outcomes of patients admitted with acute decompensated heart failure. Patients were divided into two groups based on their pro-BNP response to treatment: (1) pro-BNP responsive to treatment (decrease by at least 30%) and (2) pro-BNP unresponsive to treatment (decrease by less than 30%). The primary outcomes of interest were 180-day mortality and 180-day readmission. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the independent association between pro-BNP response to treatment and 180-day mortality and readmission. Adjustment variables included age, gender, Charlson co-morbidity score, admission creatinine, admission haematocrit, ejection fraction, preserved ejection fraction, and LV end-diastolic dimension.

RESULTS

The total study population included 819 patients with 455 (55.6%) in the pro-BNP responsive group and 364 (44.4%) in the pro-BNP unresponsive group. Admissions whose BNP was unresponsive to treatment had significantly increased risk for 180-day mortality, compared with BNP-responsive admissions (26.4% vs. 13.2%, p < 0.001). Brain natriuretic peptide unresponsiveness remained significantly associated with increased 180-day mortality after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics (HR_adj = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.52-3.14). BNP-unresponsiveness was not associated with significantly increased 180-day readmission rates (HR_adj = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.92-1.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients whose pro-BNP did not improve by >30% were at increased risk for 180-day mortality, but not 180-day readmission. Thus, BNP-unresponsiveness provides meaningful prognostic information, and it may define a patient population that would benefit from specific therapies to reduce the risk.

B-type natriuretic peptide-guided therapy for heart failure (HF): a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) and aggregate data

BACKGROUND

We estimated the effectiveness of serial B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) blood testing to guide up-titration of medication compared with symptom-guided up-titration of medication in patients with heart failure (HF).

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched: MEDLINE (Ovid) 1950 to 9/06/2016; Embase (Ovid), 1980 to 2016 week 23; the Cochrane Library; ISI Web of Science (Citations Index and Conference Proceedings). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were death related to HF, cardiovascular death, all-cause hospital admission, hospital admission for HF, adverse events, and quality of life. IPD were sought from all RCTs identified. Random-effects meta-analyses (two-stage) were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and confidence intervals (CIs) across RCTs, including HR estimates from published reports of studies that did not provide IPD. We estimated treatment-by-covariate interactions for age, gender, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, HF type; diabetes status and baseline BNP subgroups. Dichotomous outcomes were analysed using random-effects odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI.

RESULTS

We identified 14 eligible RCTs, five providing IPD. BNP-guided therapy reduced the hazard of hospital admission for HF by 19% (13 RCTs, HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) but not all-cause mortality (13 RCTs; HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.01) or cardiovascular mortality (5 RCTs; OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.16). For all-cause mortality, there was a significant interaction between treatment strategy and age (p = 0.034, 11 RCTs; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.92, patients < 75 years old and HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.37, patients ≥ 75 years old); ejection fraction (p = 0.026, 11 RCTs; HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF); and HR 1.33, 95% CI 0.83-2.11, patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)). Adverse events were significantly more frequent with BNP-guided therapy vs. symptom-guided therapy (5 RCTs; OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.60).

CONCLUSION

BNP-guided therapy did not reduce mortality but reduced HF hospitalisation. The overall quality of the evidence varied from low to very low. The relevance of these findings to unselected patients, particularly those managed by community generalists, are unclear.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013005335.

Natriuretic Peptides and Normal Body Fluid Regulation

Natriuretic peptides are structurally related, functionally diverse hormones. Circulating atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) are delivered predominantly by the heart. Two C-type natriuretic peptides (CNPs) are paracrine messengers, notably in bone, brain, and vessels. Natriuretic peptides act by binding to the extracellular domains of three receptors, NPR-A, NPR-B, and NPR-C of which the first two are guanylate cyclases. NPR-C is coupled to inhibitory proteins. Atrial wall stress is the major regulator of ANP secretion; however, atrial pressure changes plasma ANP only modestly and transiently, and the relation between plasma ANP and atrial wall tension (or extracellular volume or sodium intake) is weak. Absence and overexpression of ANP-related genes are associated with modest blood pressure changes. ANP augments vascular permeability and reduces vascular contractility, renin and aldosterone secretion, sympathetic nerve activity, and renal tubular sodium transport. Within the physiological range of plasma ANP, the responses to step-up changes are unimpressive; in man, the systemic physiological effects include diminution of renin secretion, aldosterone secretion, and cardiac preload. For BNP, the available evidence does not show that cardiac release to the blood is related to sodium homeostasis or body fluid control. CNPs are not circulating hormones, but primarily paracrine messengers important to ossification, nervous system development, and endothelial function. Normally, natriuretic peptides are not powerful natriuretic/diuretic hormones; common conclusions are not consistently supported by hard data. ANP may provide fine-tuning of reno-cardiovascular relationships, but seems, together with BNP, primarily involved in the regulation of cardiac performance and remodeling. © 2017 American Physiological Society. Compr Physiol 8:1211-1249, 2018.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of serum B-type natriuretic peptide testing and monitoring in patients with heart failure in primary and secondary care: an evidence synthesis, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) affects around 500,000 people in the UK. HF medications are frequently underprescribed and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP)-guided therapy may help to optimise treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided therapy compared with symptom-guided therapy in HF patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model.

SETTING

A literature review and usual care in the NHS.

PARTICIPANTS

(a) HF patients in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BNP-guided therapy; and (b) patients having usual care for HF in the NHS.

INTERVENTIONS

Systematic review: BNP-guided therapy or symptom-guided therapy in primary or secondary care. Cohort study: BNP monitored (≥ 6 months' follow-up and three or more BNP tests and two or more tests per year), BNP tested (≥ 1 tests but not BNP monitored) or never tested. Cost-effectiveness model: BNP-guided therapy in specialist clinics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mortality, hospital admission (all cause and HF related) and adverse events; and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the cost-effectiveness model.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic review: Individual participant or aggregate data from eligible RCTs. Cohort study: The Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and National Heart Failure Audit (NHFA).

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic literature search (five databases, trial registries, grey literature and reference lists of publications) for published and unpublished RCTs.

RESULTS

Five RCTs contributed individual participant data (IPD) and eight RCTs contributed aggregate data (1536 participants were randomised to BNP-guided therapy and 1538 participants were randomised to symptom-guided therapy). For all-cause mortality, the hazard ratio (HR) for BNP-guided therapy was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04]. Patients who were aged < 75 years or who had heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) received the most benefit [interactions (p = 0.03): < 75 years vs. ≥ 75 years: HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.92) vs. 1.07 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.37); HFrEF vs. heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF): HR 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.01) vs. 1.33 (95% CI 0.83 to 2.11)]. In the cohort study, incident HF patients (1 April 2005-31 March 2013) were never tested (n = 13,632), BNP tested (n = 3392) or BNP monitored (n = 71). Median survival was 5 years; all-cause mortality was 141.5 out of 1000 person-years (95% CI 138.5 to 144.6 person-years). All-cause mortality and hospital admission rate were highest in the BNP-monitored group, and median survival among 130,433 NHFA patients (1 January 2007-1 March 2013) was 2.2 years. The admission rate was 1.1 patients per year (interquartile range 0.5-3.5 patients). In the cost-effectiveness model, in patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF or HFpEF, BNP-guided therapy improves median survival (7.98 vs. 6.46 years) with a small QALY gain (5.68 vs. 5.02) but higher lifetime costs (£64,777 vs. £58,139). BNP-guided therapy is cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of the trial were a lack of IPD for most RCTs and heterogeneous interventions; the inability to identify BNP monitoring confidently, to determine medication doses or to distinguish between HFrEF and HFpEF; the use of a simplified two-state Markov model; a focus on health service costs and a paucity of data on HFpEF patients aged < 75 years and HFrEF patients aged ≥ 75 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of BNP-guided therapy in specialist HF clinics is uncertain. If efficacious, it would be cost-effective for patients aged < 75 years with HFrEF. The evidence reviewed may not apply in the UK because care is delivered differently.

FUTURE WORK

Identify an optimal BNP-monitoring strategy and how to optimise HF management in accordance with guidelines; update the IPD meta-analysis to include the Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment (GUIDE-IT) RCT; collect routine long-term outcome data for completed and ongoing RCTs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37248047 and PROSPERO CRD42013005335.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The British Heart Foundation paid for Chris A Rogers' and Maria Pufulete's time contributing to the study. Syed Mohiuddin's time is supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. Rachel Maishman contributed to the study when she was in receipt of a NIHR Methodology Research Fellowship.

What Is New in Heart Failure Management in 2017? Update on ACC/AHA Heart Failure Guidelines

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this paper is to provide a summary of the new recommendations in the most recent 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. The intent is to provide the background and the supporting evidence for the recommendations and to provide practical guidance for management strategies in treatment of heart failure patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of HF guidelines, important additions include new information on biomarkers, specifically on the topics of the diagnostic, prognostic role of natriuretic peptides in heart failure, and the role of natriuretic peptides in screening in patients high risk for HF and prevention of HF. There are important recommendations for treatment of patients with HF with reduced EF (HFrEF), including the beneficial role of angiotensin receptor blocker and neprilysin inhibition (ARNI) treatment in reducing outcomes including mortality, ivabradine in reducing heart failure hospitalizations in stable HFrEF patients with sinus rhythm and heart rate ≥ 70 bpm despite β-blockers. In patients with HF with preserved EF (HFpEF), though there are no studies demonstrating survival benefit, potential benefit with aldosterone antagonism in reducing HF hospitalizations is noted. In treatment of comorbidities, optimization of blood pressure control to less than 130 mmHg is recommended in hypertensive patients to prevent HF or in patients with hypertension and HFrEF or HFpEF. In addition to recognition on the potential role of treatment of iron deficiency anemia to improve symptoms and functional capacity, caution against use of adaptive servo-ventilation in patients with HFrEF and central sleep apnea and against use of erythropoietin stimulating agents in patients with HFrEF is provided. There are new treatment strategies that are associated with significant improvements in mortality and other outcomes in patients with HF. Successful management of HF requires recognition of indications, contraindications, benefits, safety, and risk of these new therapies. In addition to incorporation of these new treatment strategies, it is critical to focus also on patient education, care coordination, identification of goals of care, monitoring, management of comorbidities, and individualization of therapies. New treatment modalities increase the choices for treatment and provide the opportunity to implement individualized treatment strategies for our patients.

Does natriuretic peptide monitoring improve outcomes in heart failure patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines do not support the use of serial natriuretic peptide (NP) monitoring for heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treatment, despite some studies showing benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to address whether medical therapy in HFpEF or HFrEF should be titrated according to NP levels.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NP versus guideline directed titration in HF patients through December 2017. The key outcomes of interest were mortality, HF hospitalizations and all-cause hospitalizations. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were pooled using random effects model. Sub-group analyses were performed for type of NP used, average age and acute or chronic HF.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials including 5116 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the NP-guided arm versus guideline directed titration in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.91 [0.81, 1.03]; p = 0.13), HF hospitalizations (RR = 0.81 [0.65, 1.01]; p = 0.06), and all cause hospitalizations (RR = 0.93 [0.86, 1.01]; p = 0.09). The results were consistent upon subgroup analysis by biomarker type (NT-proBNP or BNP) and type of heart failure (acute or chronic and HFrEF or HFpEF). Sub-group analysis suggested that NP-guided treatment was associated with decreased all-cause hospitalizations in patients younger than 72 years of age.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests that NP-guided therapy provides no additional benefit over guideline directed therapy in terms of all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalizations in acute or chronic HF patients, regardless of their ejection fraction.

The Initial Evaluation and Management of a Patient with Heart Failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this review is to summarize and discuss a thorough and effective manner in the evaluation of the patient with heart failure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Heart failure is a prevalent disease worldwide and while the diagnosis of heart failure has remained relatively unchanged via a careful history and physical examination, identification of the etiology of the heart failure and treatment has made significant advances. Mechanical circulatory support (MCS), neprilysin inhibitors, and chronic resynchronization therapy (CRT) are just some of the relatively recent therapies afforded to assist heart failure patients. Heart failure is a complicated, multifactorial diagnosis that requires a careful history and physical for diagnosis with the support of laboratory tests. While the prognosis for heart failure patients remains poor in comparison to other cardiovascular disease and even certain cancers, new advancements in therapy have shown survival and quality of life improvement.

ANMCO/ELAS/SIBioC Consensus Document: biomarkers in heart failure

Biomarkers have dramatically impacted the way heart failure (HF) patients are evaluated and managed. A biomarker is a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological or pathogenic processes, or pharmacological responses to a therapeutic intervention. Natriuretic peptides [B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP] are the gold standard biomarkers in determining the diagnosis and prognosis of HF, and a natriuretic peptide-guided HF management looks promising. In the last few years, an array of additional biomarkers has emerged, each reflecting different pathophysiological processes in the development and progression of HF: myocardial insult, inflammation, fibrosis, and remodelling, but their role in the clinical care of the patient is still partially defined and more studies are needed before to be well validated. Moreover, several new biomarkers have the potential to identify patients with early renal dysfunction and appear to have promise to help the management cardio-renal syndrome. With different biomarkers reflecting HF presence, the various pathways involved in its progression, as well as identifying unique treatment options for HF management, a closer cardiologist-laboratory link, with a multi-biomarker approach to the HF patient, is not far ahead, allowing the unique opportunity for specifically tailoring care to the individual pathological phenotype.

B-type natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for heart failure

BACKGROUND

Heart failure is a condition in which the heart does not pump enough blood to meet all the needs of the body. Symptoms of heart failure include breathlessness, fatigue and fluid retention. Outcomes for patients with heart failure are highly variable; however on average, these patients have a poor prognosis. Prognosis can be improved with early diagnosis and appropriate use of medical treatment, use of devices and transplantation. Patients with heart failure are high users of healthcare resources, not only due to drug and device treatments, but due to high costs of hospitalisation care. B-type natriuretic peptide levels are already used as biomarkers for diagnosis and prognosis of heart failure, but could offer to clinicians a possible tool to guide drug treatment. This could optimise drug management in heart failure patients whilst allaying concerns over potential side effects due to drug intolerance.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether treatment guided by serial BNP or NT-proBNP (collectively referred to as NP) monitoring improves outcomes compared with treatment guided by clinical assessment alone.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches were conducted up to 15 March 2016 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database in the Cochrane Library. Searches were also conducted in the Science Citation Index Expanded, the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov. We applied no date or language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of NP-guided treatment of heart failure versus treatment guided by clinical assessment alone with no restriction on follow-up. Adults treated for heart failure, in both in-hospital and out-of-hospital settings, and trials reporting a clinical outcome were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and pooled mean differences (MD) (with 95% confidence intervals (CI)) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 18 randomised controlled trials with 3660 participants (range of mean age: 57 to 80 years) comparing NP-guided treatment with clinical assessment alone. The evidence for all-cause mortality using NP-guided treatment showed uncertainty (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.01; patients = 3169; studies = 15; low quality of the evidence), and for heart failure mortality (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.30; patients = 853; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).The evidence suggested heart failure admission was reduced by NP-guided treatment (38% versus 26%, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.80; patients = 1928; studies = 10; low quality of evidence), but the evidence showed uncertainty for all-cause admission (57% versus 53%, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; patients = 1142; studies = 6; low quality of evidence).Six studies reported on adverse events, however the results could not be pooled (patients = 1144; low quality of evidence). Only four studies provided cost of treatment results, three of these studies reported a lower cost for NP-guided treatment, whilst one reported a higher cost (results were not pooled; patients = 931, low quality of evidence). The evidence showed uncertainty for quality of life data (MD -0.03, 95% CI -1.18 to 1.13; patients = 1812; studies = 8; very low quality of evidence).We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. The impact of risk of bias from lack of blinding of outcome assessment and high attrition levels was examined by restricting analyses to only low 'Risk of bias' studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with heart failure low-quality evidence showed a reduction in heart failure admission with NP-guided treatment while low-quality evidence showed uncertainty in the effect of NP-guided treatment for all-cause mortality, heart failure mortality, and all-cause admission. Uncertainty in the effect was further shown by very low-quality evidence for patient's quality of life. The evidence for adverse events and cost of treatment was low quality and we were unable to pool results.

Hospital Management of Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of hospitalizations for elderly adults in the United States. One in 5 Americans will be >65 years of age by 2050. Because of the high prevalence of HF in this group, the number of Americans requiring hospitalization for this disorder is expected to rise significantly. We reviewed the most recent and ongoing studies and recommendations for the management of patients hospitalized due to decompensated HF. The Acute Decompensated Heart Failure National Registry, together with the 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association heart failure guidelines, earlier retrospective and prospective studies including the Diuretic Optimization Strategies Evaluation (DOSE), the Trial of Intensified vs Standard Medical Therapy in the Elderly Patients With Congestive Heart Failure (TIME-CHF), the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF), the Rapid Emergency Department Heart Failure Outpatient Trial (REDHOT) and the Comparison of Medical, Pacing and Defibrillation Therapies in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial were reviewed for current practices pertaining to these patients. Gaps in our knowledge of optimal use of patient-specific information (biomarkers and comorbid conditions) still exist.

Catheter ablation versus medical rate control for persistent atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of restoring the sinus rhythm by catheter ablation relative to that of medical rate control for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) remains to be defined.

METHODS

We systematically searched Embase, Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for articles that compared the outcomes of interest between catheter ablation and medical rate control therapy in persistent AF patients with HF and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). The primary endpoint was the change in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) following catheter ablation or medical rate control therapy relative to baseline. Other endpoints included changes in cardiac function and exercise capacity, including the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, the brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level, the peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) results, and quality of life (QOL).

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 143 patients were included. At the overall term follow-up, catheter ablation significantly improved the LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 6.22%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.7-11.74, P = 0.03) and peak VO2 (MD: 2.81 mL/kg/min; 95% CI: 0.78-4.85, P = 0.007) and reduced the NYHA class (MD: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.59-1.21, P < 0.001) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaires (MLHFQ) scores (MD: -11.05; 95% CI: -19.45 - -2.66, P = 0.01) compared with the medical rate control for persistent AF patients with HF. Alterations in parameters, such as the BNP level, 6MWT, and Short Form-36 (SF-36) questionnaire scores also revealed trends that favored catheter ablation therapy, although these differences were not significant.

CONCLUSION

Catheter ablation resulted in improved LVEF, cardiac function, exercise capacity, and QOL for persistent AF patients with HF compared with the medical rate control strategy.

Interventions Linked to Decreased Heart Failure Hospitalizations During Ambulatory Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to analyze medical therapy data from the CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in Class III Heart Failure) trial to determine which interventions were linked to decreases in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations during ambulatory pulmonary artery (PA) pressure-guided management.

BACKGROUND

Elevated cardiac filling pressures, which increase the risk of hospitalizations and mortality, can be detected using an ambulatory PA pressure monitoring system before onset of symptomatic congestion allowing earlier intervention to prevent HF hospitalizations.

METHODS

The CHAMPION trial was a randomized, controlled, single-blind study of 550 patients with New York Heart Association functional class III HF with a HF hospitalization in the prior year. All patients undergoing implantation of the ambulatory PA pressure monitoring system were randomized to the active monitoring group (PA pressure-guided HF management plus standard of care) or to the blind therapy group (HF management by standard clinical assessment), and followed for a minimum of 6 months. Medical therapy data were compared between groups to understand what interventions produced the significant reduction in HF hospitalizations in the active monitoring group.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar baseline medical therapy. After 6 months, the active monitoring group experienced a higher frequency of medications adjustments; significant increases in the doses of diuretics, vasodilators, and neurohormonal antagonists; targeted intensification of diuretics and vasodilators in patients with higher PA pressures; and preservation of renal function despite diuretic intensification.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of a PA pressure-guided treatment algorithm to decrease filling pressures led to targeted changes, particularly in diuretics and vasodilators, and was more effective in reducing HF hospitalizations than management of patient clinical signs or symptoms alone.

Novel Biomarkers in Heart Failure Beyond Natriuretic Peptides - The Case for Soluble ST2

Despite more effective management of heart failure over the past few decades, its burden as a chronic disease has grown and is expected to continue to rise, representing a major health problem for years to come. Having reliable tools for early diagnosis and risk stratification can help managing the condition more efficiently. In this context, the interest for biomarkers has increased considerably in the last years following the useful clinical role of B-type natriuretic peptides. These biomarkers have been extensively studied and have become established diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in heart failure. Despite their usefulness, limitations still remain a problem in clinical practice and the search for new biomarkers has therefore continued. Amongst the most promising newer biomarkers, soluble ST2 deserves further consideration. The present review will focus on the role of this new biomarker in the context of heart failure.