OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to assess the prognostic value of absolute N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) concentration in combination with changes during admission because of acute heart failure (AHF) and early after hospital discharge.
BACKGROUND: In AHF, readmission and mortality rates are high. Identifying those at highest risk for events early after hospital discharge might help to select patients in need of intensive outpatient monitoring.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the prognostic value of NT-proBNP concentration on admission, at discharge, 1 month after hospital discharge and change over time in 309 patients included in the PRIMA (Can PRo-brain-natriuretic peptide guided therapy of chronic heart failure IMprove heart fAilure morbidity and mortality?) study. Primary outcome measures were mortality and the combined end point of heart failure (HF) readmission or mortality. In a multivariate Cox regression analysis, change in NT-proBNP concentration during admission, change from discharge to 1 month after discharge, and the absolute NT-proBNP concentration at 1 month after discharge were of independent prognostic value for both end points (hazard ratios for HF readmission or mortality: 1.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-2.60, Wald 6.4 [P = .011] versus 2.71, 95% CI 1.76-4.17, Wald 20.5 [P < .001] versus 1.81, 95% CI 1.13-2.89, Wald 6.1 [P = .014], respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of change in NT-proBNP concentration during admission because of AHF in combination with change early after discharge and the absolute NT-proBNP concentration at 1 month after discharge allows accurate risk stratification.
AIMS: This study was designed to evaluate a new NT-proBNP monitoring concept in outpatients with systolic heart failure (HF).
METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a multicentre, prospective randomized open-label blinded endpoint study. A total of 407 systolic HF patients were allocated to either clinical management (n = 208) or clinical management + NT-proBNP monitoring (n = 199) and followed for 2.5 years. If NT-proBNP increased >30%, a clinical checklist was completed and treatment initiated. The patients were matched at randomization and were 73 years old, 25% were females, 85% were NYHA class I-II, LVEF was 30%, and NT-proBNP 1955 pg/mL. NT-proBNP monitoring did not improve outcome, the hazard ratio for the primary composite endpoint (death or a cardiovascular admission) being 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.29, P = 0.766]. NT-proBNP monitoring did not induce a significant change in the pharmacological strategy (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). In patients in whom NT-proBNP increased >30% (25% of the patients) during follow-up, a higher frequency of admission (69% vs. 47%, P = 0.002), a higher number of admission days (14 vs. 5 days, P = 0.003) and number of admissions (2 vs. 1, P = 0.009), and a lower quality of life (P = 0.032) and a poorer functional class (37% vs. 18% in NYHA class III-IV, P < 0.001) were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding serial measurements of NT-proBNP to optimal clinical management was not associated with a change in pharmacological strategy and did not improve outcome. However, survivors in whom NT-proBNP increased >30% showed a poorer functional class, clinical outcome, and quality of life.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.centerwatch: 173491 (NorthStar).
AIMS: To assess the effects of an NT-proBNP-guided medical management on 18-month outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) and preserved LVEF ( HFpEF).
METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with HFpEF (LVEF >45%; n = 123) and HF with reduced LVEF (HFrEF; LVEF ≤45%; n = 499) with age ≥60 years, NYHA class ≥ II, and elevated NT-proBNP (>400 ng/L or >800 ng/L depending on age) were randomized to medical therapy titrated only to reduce symptoms to NYHA ≤II (symptom-guided) or also to reduce NT-proBNP below the inclusion threshold (NT-proBNP-guided) during a 6-month period. Patients were followed for an additional 12 months. Despite similar treatment escalation, NT-proBNP reduction and symptom relief were less in HFpEF than in HFrEF. Hospitalization-free survival at 18 months was worse in HFpEF than in HFrEF (P = 0.02), while survival and HF hospitalization-free survival did not differ. Among HFpEF patients, NT-proBNP reduction and symptom relief were similar in the symptom-guided (n = 59) and NT-proBNP-guided (n = 64) group despite more aggressive treatment in the NT-proBNP-guided group. In contrast to effects in HFrEF, NT-proBNP-guided management tended to worsen 18-month outcomes in HFpEF, with P-values for the interactions between LVEF stratum and management strategy of 0.2 for hospitalization-free survival, 0.03 for survival, and 0.01 for HF hospitalization-free survival.
CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes in HFpEF were not better than in HFrEF, and opposite effects of NT-proBNP-guided management were observed in HFpEF compared with HFrEF. These preliminary findings suggest that, in contrast to HFrEF, NT-proBNP-guided therapy may not be beneficial in HFpEF. Trial registration ISRCTN43596477.
BACKGROUND: STARBRITE, a multicenter randomized pilot trial, tested whether outpatient diuretic management guided by B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and clinical assessment resulted in more days alive and not hospitalized over 90 days compared with clinical assessment alone.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 130 patients from 3 sites with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% were enrolled during hospitalization for heart failure (HF) and randomly assigned to therapy guided by BNP and clinical assessment (BNP strategy) or clinical assessment alone. The clinical goal was resolution of congestion without hypotension or renal dysfunction. In the BNP arm, therapy was adjusted to achieve optimal fluid status, defined as the BNP level and congestion score obtained at the time of discharge. In the clinical assessment arm, therapy was titrated to achieve optimal fluid status, represented by the patient's signs and symptoms at the time of discharge. Exclusion criteria were serum creatinine >3.5 mg/dL and acute coronary syndrome. Follow-up was done in HF clinics. BNP was measured with the use of a rapid assay test. There was no significant difference in number of days alive and not hospitalized (hazard ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.41-1.27; P = .25), change in serum creatinine, or change in systolic blood pressure (SBP). BNP strategy was associated with a trend toward a lower blood urea nitrogen (24 mg/dL vs 29 mg/dL; P = .07); BNP strategy patients received significantly more angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and the combination of ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker plus beta-blockers.
CONCLUSIONS: BNP strategy was not associated with more days alive and not hospitalized, but the strategy appeared to be safe and was associated with increased use of evidence-based medications.
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.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether chronic heart failure (HF) therapy guided by concentrations of amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is superior to standard of care (SOC) management.
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether standard HF treatment plus a goal of reducing NT-proBNP concentrations improves outcomes compared with standard management alone.
METHODS: In a prospective single-center trial, 151 subjects with HF due to left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction were randomized to receive either standard HF care plus a goal to reduce NT-proBNP concentrations ≤1,000 pg/ml or SOC management. The primary endpoint was total cardiovascular events between groups compared using generalized estimating equations. Secondary endpoints included effects of NT-proBNP-guided care on patient quality of life as well as cardiac structure and function, assessed with echocardiography.
RESULTS: Through a mean follow-up period of 10 ± 3 months, a significant reduction in the primary endpoint of total cardiovascular events was seen in the NT-proBNP arm compared with SOC (58 events vs. 100 events, p = 0.009; logistic odds for events 0.44, p = 0.02); Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated significant differences in time to first event, favoring NT-proBNP-guided care (p = 0.03). No age interaction was found, with elderly patients benefitting similarly from NT-proBNP-guided care as younger subjects. Compared with SOC, NT-proBNP-guided patients had greater improvements in quality of life, demonstrated greater relative improvements in LV ejection fraction, and had more significant improvements in both LV end-systolic and -diastolic volume indexes.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF due to LV systolic dysfunction, NT-proBNP-guided therapy was superior to SOC, with reduced event rates, improved quality of life, and favorable effects on cardiac remodeling. (Use of NT-proBNP Testing to Guide Heart Failure Therapy in the Outpatient Setting; NCT00351390).