AimsNatriuretic peptide-guided (NP-guided) treatment of heart failure has been tested against standard clinically guided care in multiple studies, but findings have been limited by study size. We sought to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of NP-guided treatment of heart failure on all-cause mortality.Methods and resultsEligible randomized clinical trials were identified from searches of Medline and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Clinical Trials Register. The primary pre-specified outcome, all-cause mortality was tested using a Cox proportional hazards regression model that included study of origin, age (<75 or ≥75 years), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, ≤45 or >45%) as covariates. Secondary endpoints included heart failure or cardiovascular hospitalization. Of 11 eligible studies, 9 provided individual patient data and 2 aggregate data. For the primary endpoint individual data from 2000 patients were included, 994 randomized to clinically guided care and 1006 to NP-guided care. All-cause mortality was significantly reduced by NP-guided treatment [hazard ratio = 0.62 (0.45–0.86); P = 0.004] with no heterogeneity between studies or interaction with LVEF. The survival benefit from NP-guided therapy was seen in younger (<75 years) patients [0.62 (0.45–0.85); P = 0.004] but not older (≥75 years) patients [0.98 (0.75–1.27); P = 0.96]. Hospitalization due to heart failure [0.80 (0.67–0.94); P = 0.009] or cardiovascular disease [0.82 (0.67–0.99); P = 0.048] was significantly lower in NP-guided patients with no heterogeneity between studies and no interaction with age or LVEF.ConclusionNatriuretic peptide-guided treatment of heart failure reduces all-cause mortality in patients aged <75 years and overall reduces heart failure and cardiovascular hospitalization.

Aim To determine whether brain natriuretic peptide (BNP)‐guided heart failure (HF) treatment improves morbidity and/or mortality when compared with conventional treatment. Methods and results UPSTEP was an investigator‐initiated, randomized, parallel group, multicentre study with a PROBE design. Symptomatic patients with worsening HF, New York Heart Association class II–IV, ejection fraction <40% and elevated BNP levels, were included. All patients (n= 279) were treated according to recommended guidelines and randomized to BNP‐guided (BNP) or to conventional (CTR) HF treatment. The goal was to reduce BNP levels to <150 ng/L in younger patients and <300 ng/L in elderly patients, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of death due to any cause, need for hospitalization and worsening HF. The study groups were well matched, including for BNP concentration at entry (mean: 808 vs. 899 ng/L; P= 0.34). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding either the primary outcome (P = 0.18) or any of the secondary endpoints. There were no differences for the pre‐specified analyses; days out of hospital, and younger vs. elderly. A subgroup analysis comparing treatment responders (>30% decrease in baseline BNP value) vs. non‐responders found improved survival among responders (P< 0.0001 for the primary outcome), and all of the secondary endpoints were also improved. Conclusions Morbidity and mortality were not improved by HF treatment guided by BNP levels. However, BNP responders had a significantly better clinical outcome than non‐responders. Future research is needed to elucidate the responsible pathophysiological mechanisms in this sub‐population.

AimsPrevious 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 resultsTo 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).

A dyadic mindfulness-based CBT programme improved HRQoL and reduced psychological distress up to 12 months post atrial fibrillation. The sense of coherence strongly mediated the HRQoL; consequently, the sense of coherence is an important determinant to consider when designing programmes for atrial fibrillation patients.

BackgroundWe 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).MethodsSystematic 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionBNP-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 registrationPROSPERO CRD42013005335Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0776-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.

No abstract

BackgroundTo investigate whether B-type natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment of heart failure (HF) patients improved their health related quality of life (Hr-QoL) compared to routine HF treatment, and whether changes in Hr-QoL differed depending on whether the patient was a responder to NP-guided therapy or not.MethodsA secondary analysis of the UPSTEP-study, a Scandinavian multicentre study using a prospective, randomized, open, blinded evaluation design on patients with HF with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II-IV. NP-guiding was aimed to reduce BNP <150 ng/L if < 75 years or BNP < 300 ng/L if > 75 years. A responder was defined as a patient with a BNP < 300 ng/L and/or a decrease in BNP of at least 40 % in week 16 compared to study start. Short form-36 (SF-36) was used to measure Hr-QoL. At the study start, 258 patients presented evaluable SF-36 questionnaires, 131 in the BNP group and 127 in the control group. At the study end 100 patients in the NP-guided group and 98 in the control group, presenting data from both the study start and the study end.ResultsThere were no significant differences in Hr-QoL between NP-guided HF treatment and control group; however significant improvements could be seen in four of the eight domains in the NP-guided group, whereas in the control group improvements could be seen in six of the domains.Among the responders improvements could be noted in four domains whereas in the non-responders improvements could be seen in only one domain evaluating within group changes.ConclusionsImproved Hr-QoL could be demonstrated in several of the domains in both the NP-guided and the control group. In the responder group within group analyses showed more increased Hr-QoL compared to the non-responder group. However, all groups demonstrated increase in Hr-QoL.