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.

AimsTreatment of chronic heart failure (CHF) guided by natriuretic peptides has been studied in clinical trials with conflicting results. The aim of this study was to investigate if N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided therapy in symptomatic heart failure patients in primary care would improve clinical outcomes over and above treatment according to guidelines. Methods and resultsSIGNAL-HF was a 9 month, randomized, single-blind, parallel group study in patients with CHF in NYHA class II -IV, ejection fraction (EF) ,50% and elevated NT-proBNP levels (males .800, females .1000 ng/L). All investigators underwent a pre-study educational programme about current CHF guidelines. A control group managed by nontrained investigators was considered not possible for ethical and practical reasons. Patients were randomized to structured treatment of CHF according to guidelines with or without NT-proBNP monitoring. The choice and dose of therapy for CHF was at the investigator's discretion. The primary outcome variable was the composite endpoint of days alive, days out of hospital, and symptom score from the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire.In all, 252 patients were randomized. The allocation groups were well balanced with regards to age, NT-proBNP, and EF. Treatment doses of beta-blockers and blockers of the renin -angiotensin-aldosterone system were markedly increased towards target doses and to a similar degree in both groups. There were no differences between the groups concerning either the primary endpoint (P ¼ 0.28) or its components [cardiovascular (CV) death, P ¼ 0.93; CV hospitalization, P ¼ 0.88; or symptom score, P ¼ 0.28]. ConclusionNT-proBNP-guided CHF treatment did not result in important improvements in clinical outcomes in patients with CHF in primary care above and beyond what could be achieved by education and structured CHF treatment according to guidelines.--

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).