RW is an employee of CPRD, who received funding from the University of Bristol to provide access to the data for this study. CPRD provide research services for, and receive associated funding from, a range of pharmaceutical, academic, governmental, NGO and regulatory organisations. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.MJD has accepted fees for advisory boards from St Jude who make a range of cardiology devices and also from Bayer for support for attending conferences. 3 Abstract: AimsEvidence on the economic impact of heart failure (HF) is vital in order to predict the costeffectiveness of novel interventions. We estimate the health system costs of HF during the last five years of life. MethodsWe used linked primary care and mortality data accessed through the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify 1,555 adults in England who died with HF in 2012/13. We used CPRD and linked Hospital Episode Statistics to estimate the cost of medications, primary and hospital healthcare. Using GLS regression we estimated the relationship between costs, HF diagnosis, proximity to death and patient characteristics. ResultsIn the last 3 months of life, healthcare costs were £8,827 (95% CI £8,357 to £9,296) per patient, more than 90% of which were for inpatient or critical care. In the last 3 months, patients spent on average 17.8 (95% CI 16.8 to 18.8) days in hospital and had 8.8 (95% CI 8.4 to 9.1) primary care consultations. Most (931/1555; 59.9%) patients were in hospital on the day of death. Mean quarterly healthcare costs in quarters after HF diagnosis were higher (£1,439; [95% CI £1,260 to £1,619]) than in quarters preceding diagnosis. Older patients and patients with lower comorbidity scores had lower costs. ConclusionHealthcare costs increase sharply at the end of life and are dominated by hospital care. There is potential to save money by implementation and evaluation of interventions that are known to reduce hospitalisations for HF, particularly at the end of life.

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.

BackgroundHeart 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.ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided therapy compared with symptom-guided therapy in HF patients.DesignSystematic review, cohort study and cost-effectiveness model.SettingA 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.InterventionsSystematic review: BNP-guided therapy or symptom-guided therapy in primary or secondary care.Cohort study: BNP monitored (≥ 6 months’ follow-upandthree or more BNP testsandtwo 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 measuresMortality, hospital admission (all cause and HF related) and adverse events; and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the cost-effectiveness model.Data sourcesSystematic 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 methodsA systematic literature search (five databases, trial registries, grey literature and reference lists of publications) for published and unpublished RCTs.ResultsFive 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.LimitationsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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 workIdentify 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 registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN37248047 and PROSPERO CRD42013005335.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth 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.

ObjectiveMonitoring B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) to guide pharmacotherapy might improve survival in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is uncertain and guidelines do not uniformly recommend it. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care in patient subgroups defined by age and ejection fraction.MethodsWe used a Markov model with a 3-month cycle length to estimate the lifetime health service costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental net monetary benefits (iNMBs) of BNP-guided versus clinically guided care in 3 patient subgroups: (1) HFrEF patients <75 years; (2) HFpEF patients <75 years; and (3) HFrEF patients ≥75 years. There is no evidence of benefit in patients with HFpEF aged ≥75 years. We used individual patient data meta-analyses and linked primary care, hospital and mortality data to inform the key model parameters. We performed probabilistic analysis to assess the uncertainty in model results.ResultsIn younger patients (<75 years) with HFrEF, the mean QALYs (5.57 vs 5.02) and costs (£63 527 vs £58 139) were higher with BNP-guided care. At the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the positive iNMB (£5424 (95% CI £987 to £9469)) indicates that BNP-guided care is cost-effective in this subgroup. The evidence of cost-effectiveness of BNP-guided care is less strong for younger patients with HFpEF (£3155 (−£10 307 to £11 613)) and older patients (≥75 years) with HFrEF (£2267 (−£1524 to £6074)). BNP-guided care remained cost-effective in the sensitivity analyses, albeit the results were sensitive to assumptions on its sustained effect.ConclusionsWe found strong evidence that BNP-guided care is a cost-effective alternative to clinically guided care in younger patients with HFrEF. It is potentially cost-effective in younger patients with HFpEF and older patients with HFrEF, but more evidence is required, particularly with respect to the frequency, duration and BNP target for monitoring. Cost-effectiveness results from trials in specialist settings cannot be generalised to primary care.

Introduction Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest is known to be responsible for ischaemia and reperfusion organ injury. In a previous study, ProMPT, in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass or aortic valve surgery we demonstrated improved cardiac protection when supplementing the cardioplegia solution with propofol (6 mcg/ml). The aim of the ProMPT2 study is to determine whether higher levels of propofol added to the cardioplegia could result in increased cardiac protection. Methods and Analysis The ProMPT2 study is a multi-centre, parallel, three-group, randomised controlled trial in adults undergoing non-emergency isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. A total of 240 patients will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either cardioplegia supplementation with high dose of propofol (12 mcg/ml), low dose of propofol (6 mcg/ml) or placebo (saline). The primary outcome is myocardial injury, assessed by serial measurements of myocardial troponin T up to 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes include biomarkers of renal function (creatinine) and metabolism (lactate). Ethics and Dissemination The trial received research ethics approval from South Central – Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee and Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in September 2018. Any findings will be shared though peer-reviewed publications and presented at international and national meetings. Participants will be informed of results through patient organisations and newsletters. Trial Registration ISRCTN15255199. Registered in March 2019.