Abstract
Introduction: Natriuretic peptide-guided therapy has not proven to be more sufficiently effective than usual care (UC) in patients with heart failure (HF). Soluble ST2 (sST2) has a number of advantages over natriuretic peptides. Hypothesis: sST2-guided therapy (sST2-GT) will be more effective than UC in patients with HFrEF. Methods: The prospective study included 76 patients (pts) with HFrEF, who were hospitalized due to acute decompensated HF. Pts with sST2 levels ≥ 37.8 ng/ml at the time of discharge constituted the high-risk cohort and were randomized into 2 groups: 19 pts in the sST2-GT and 18 patients in the UC. 39 pts with sST2 < 37.8 ng/ml and NT-proBNP < 1700 pg/ml were included in the low-risk cohort. The duration of the active treatment period was 6 months with monthly visits for therapy correction, the total follow-up period was up to 1 year. Therapy was carried out in accordance with clinical recommendations. In the sST2-GT group, therapy was also adjusted taking into account the concentration of sST2. The goal in this group was to reduce sST2 concentration by more than 30% or to less than 30 ng/ml. Measurement of sST2 (ASPECT-PLUS) concentration, echocardiography and registration combined endpoints (CEP) (HF decompensation (HFD) or cardiovascular mortality) were identified in all groups after 6 and 12 months. Results: Pts therapy in both high-risk groups was comparable, but pts in the sST2-GT group had a greater number of study clinic visits (7.1±2.3 vs 5.6±1.6 (p=0.024) compared with UC group. Pts sST2 concentration decreased in both high-risk groups, with the study goal achieved in 68,4% of pts in sST-GT group. Fewer CEP were registered In sST2-GT group pts compared to the UC group (for 6 months - 5 (0.26 / pt) vs 15 (0.83 / pt), p = 0.029 and 9 (0.47/pt) vs 22 (1.22/pt), p=0.035 over the entire follow-up) and it was practically similar low-risk cohort (0.46/patient). Fewer HFD were registered in the sST2-GT group compared to the UC group (for 6 months 4 (0.21 /pt) vs 13 (0.72 /pt), p < 0.001 and 8 (0.42/pt) vs 19 (1.06/pt), p<0.001 over entire follow-up), which was similar the low-risk group (0,31/pt). LV EF increased only in the sST2-GT group (from 29.2±6.2 up to 36.1±8.8, p=0.003 for 6 months). Conclusions: sST2-GT in high-risk pts with HFrEF is more effective than UC.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
