Dataset Information

Relation between therapy-induced changes in natriuretic peptide levels and long-term therapeutic effects on mortality in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To assess whether natriuretic peptides (NPs) can be used to reliably predict long-term therapeutic effect on clinical outcomes for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods and results

HFrEF intervention trials with mortality data were identified. Subsequently, we identified trials assessing therapy-induced changes in NPs. We assessed the correlation between the average short-term placebo-corrected drug or device effect on NPs and the longer-term therapeutic effect on clinical outcomes. Of 35 distinct therapies with an identifiable mortality result (n = 105 062 patients), 20 therapies had corresponding data on therapeutic effect on NPs. No correlation was observed between therapy-induced placebo-corrected change in brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and therapeutic effect on all-cause mortality (ACM) (Spearman r = -0.32, P = 0.18 and r = -0.20, P = 0.47, respectively). There was no correlation between therapy-induced placebo-corrected per cent change in NP and intervention effect on ACM or ACM-heart failure hospitalizations (r = -0.30, P = 0.11 and r = 0.10, P = 0.75, respectively).

Conclusions

Short-term intervention-induced changes in NP levels are not reliable predictors of therapeutic long-term effect on mortality or morbidity outcomes for patients with HFrEF.

SUBMITTER: Wessler BS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8016822 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is a commonly used biomarker in heart failure for diagnosis and prognostication. We aimed to determine the prevalence of NT-proBNP testing, distribution of NT-proBNP concentrations, and factors associated with receiving an NT-proBNP test in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), including the subset with a worsening heart failure event (WHFE).Methods and resultsThis was a retrospective cohort study using two US databases: (i) the de-identified Humana Research Database between January 2015 and December 2018 and (ii) the Veradigm PINNACLE Registry® between July 2013 and September 2017. We included adult patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HFrEF. In each data source, a subgroup of patients with a WHFE was identified, where a WHFE was defined as a heart failure-related hospitalization or receipt of intravenous diuretics. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess factors associated with receiving NT-proBNP testing. In Cohort 1 (n = 249 238), 9.2% of patients with HFrEF and 10.8% of patients with a WHFE received NT-proBNP testing. When restricted to patients with at least one laboratory claim, 11.3% of patients with HFrEF and 13.2% of those with a WHFE received NT-proBNP testing. In Cohort 2 (n = 91 444), 2.3% of patients with HFrEF were tested. Median (inter-quartile range) NT-proBNP concentrations among patients with HFrEF were 1399 (423-4087) pg/mL in Cohort 1 and 394 (142-688) pg/mL in Cohort 2. Median (inter-quartile range) NT-proBNP concentrations in the subset of patients with a WHFE in each cohort were 2209 (740-5894) and 464 (174-783) pg/mL, respectively. In Cohort 1, 13.4% of all HFrEF patients receiving NT-proBNP testing and 18.9% of patients with a WHFE had NT-proBNP values >8000 pg/mL; in Cohort 2, these percentages were 1.0% and 2.5%, respectively.ConclusionsIn US clinical practice, NT-proBNP testing was not frequently performed in patients with HFrEF. NT-proBNP concentrations varied across data sources and subpopulations within HFrEF.

Project description:ImportanceThe natriuretic peptides are biochemical markers of heart failure (HF) severity and predictors of adverse outcomes. Smaller studies have evaluated adjusting HF therapy based on natriuretic peptide levels ("guided therapy") with inconsistent results.ObjectiveTo determine whether an amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided treatment strategy improves clinical outcomes vs usual care in high-risk patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Design, settings, and participantsThe Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure (GUIDE-IT) study was a randomized multicenter clinical trial conducted between January 16, 2013, and September 20, 2016, at 45 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. This study planned to randomize 1100 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction ≤40%), elevated natriuretic peptide levels within the prior 30 days, and a history of a prior HF event (HF hospitalization or equivalent) to either an NT-proBNP-guided strategy or usual care.InterventionsPatients were randomized to either an NT-proBNP-guided strategy or usual care. Patients randomized to the guided strategy (n = 446) had HF therapy titrated with the goal of achieving a target NT-proBNP of less than 1000 pg/mL. Patients randomized to usual care (n = 448) had HF care in accordance with published guidelines, with emphasis on titration of proven neurohormonal therapies for HF. Serial measurement of NT-proBNP testing was discouraged in the usual care group.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the composite of time-to-first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular mortality. Prespecified secondary end points included all-cause mortality, total hospitalizations for HF, days alive and not hospitalized for cardiovascular reasons, the individual components on the primary end point, and adverse events.ResultsThe data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the study for futility when 894 (median age, 63 years; 286 [32%] women) of the planned 1100 patients had been enrolled with follow-up for a median of 15 months. The primary end point occurred in 164 patients (37%) in the biomarker-guided group and 164 patients (37%) in the usual care group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.22; P = .88). Cardiovascular mortality was 12% (n = 53) in the biomarker-guided group and 13% (n = 57) in the usual care group (HR, 0.94; 95% CI; 0.65-1.37; P = .75). None of the secondary end points nor the decreases in the NT-proBNP levels achieved differed significantly between groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn high-risk patients with HFrEF, a strategy of NT-proBNP-guided therapy was not more effective than a usual care strategy in improving outcomes.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01685840.

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between body composition, N-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, and heart failure (HF) phenotypes and outcomes.BackgroundAbnormalities in body composition can influence metabolic dysfunction and HF severity; however, data assessing fat distribution and skeletal muscle (SM) size in HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved EF (HFpEF) are limited. Further, whether NPs relate more closely to axial muscle mass than measures of adiposity is not well studied.MethodsWe studied 572 adults without HF (n = 367), with HFrEF (n = 113), or with HFpEF (n = 92). Cardiac magnetic resonance was used to assess subcutaneous and visceral abdominal fat, paracardial fat, and axial SM size. We measured NT-proBNP in 334 participants. We used Cox regression to analyze the relationship between body composition and mortality.ResultsCompared with controls, pericardial and subcutaneous fat thickness were significantly increased in HFpEF, whereas patients with HFrEF had reduced axial SM size after adjusting for age, sex, race, and body height (p < 0.05 for comparisons). Lower axial SM size, but not fat, was significantly predictive of death in unadjusted (standardized hazard ratio: 0.63; p < 0.0001) and multivariable-adjusted analyses (standardized hazard ratio = 0.72; p = 0.0007). NT-proBNP levels more closely related to lower axial SM rather than fat distribution or body mass index (BMI) in network analysis, and when simultaneously assessed, only SM (p = 0.0002) but not BMI (p = 0.18) was associated with NT-proBNP. However, both NT-proBNP and axial SM mass were independently predictive of death (p < 0.05).ConclusionsHFpEF and HFrEF have distinct abnormalities in body composition. Reduced axial SM, but not fat, independently predicts mortality. Greater axial SM more closely associates with lower NT-proBNP rather than adiposity. Lower NT-proBNP levels in HFpEF compared with HFrEF relate more closely to muscle mass rather than obesity.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of dynamic changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in an all-comer heart failure (HF) population with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%). We sought to identify independent factors related to improvement in EF and to identify risk factors for increased risk of CV events in the subgroups of improved EF (iEF) and non-improved EF (niEF), respecively.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective sub-analysis from the REDEAL HF trial, which included consecutive patients with chronic HF who were hospitalized from July 2009 to December 2017. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography data (interval ≥12 months) of 573 consecutive patients with HFrEF were analysed. iEF was defined as absolute improvement in EF ≥ 10% and follow-up EF over 40%. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, CV hospitalization, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. EF improved in 37.2% of patients with HFrEF during follow-up (median period of 17 months). iEF was independently associated with shorter HF duration (>4 vs. ≤4 years, odd ratio [OR] = 0.477, 95% CI 0.305-0.745), no coronary artery disease (CAD vs. no CAD, OR = 0.583, 95% CI 0.396-0.858), and no ICD implantation (ICD vs. no ICD, OR = 0.341, 95% CI 0.228-0.511). Compared with niEF, iEF was significantly and independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (22.1% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.019; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.674, 95% CI 0.469-0.968), lower CV mortality (8.9% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.015; HR = 0.539, 95% CI 0.317-0.916), and lower CV events risk (27.2% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; HR 0.519, 95% CI 0.381-0.708), after adjustment for age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors. Hypertension (HR = 2.452, P = 0.032) and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >1153 pg/mL, HR = 4.372, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for CV events in the iEF subgroup. ICD implantation (HR = 1.533, P = 0.011), elevated NT-proBNP (HR = 1.626, P = 0.018), increased left atrial volume index (HR = 1.461, P = 0.021), reduced lateral mitral annular plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.478, P = 0.025), and reduced tricuspid plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.491, P = 0.039) were identified as risk factors for CV events in the niEF subgroup.ConclusionsImprovement in EF is independently related to the longer survival and lower CV related mortality and hospitalization rate of HFrEF. Elevated baseline NT-proBNP is identified as the strongest prognostic factor associated with increased CV events risk in HFrEF patients both with and without improved EF, regardless of age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors.

Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.