Does natriuretic peptide monitoring improve outcomes in heart failure patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundCurrent guidelines do not support the use of serial natriuretic peptide (NP) monitoring for heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) treatment, despite some studies showing benefit. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to address whether medical therapy in HFpEF or HFrEF should be titrated according to NP levels. MethodsMEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NP versus guideline directed titration in HF patients through December 2017. The key outcomes of interest were mortality, HF hospitalizations and all-cause hospitalizations. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were pooled using random effects model. Sub-group analyses were performed for type of NP used, average age and acute or chronic HF. ResultsEighteen trials including 5116 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the NP-guided arm versus guideline directed titration in all-cause mortality (RR = 0.91 [0.81, 1.03]; p = 0.13), HF hospitalizations (RR = 0.81 [0.65, 1.01]; p = 0.06), and all cause hospitalizations (RR = 0.93 [0.86, 1.01]; p = 0.09). The results were consistent upon subgroup analysis by biomarker type (NT-proBNP or BNP) and type of heart failure (acute or chronic and HFrEF or HFpEF). Sub-group analysis suggested that NP-guided treatment was associated with decreased all-cause hospitalizations in patients younger than 72 years of age. ConclusionThe available evidence suggests that NP-guided therapy provides no additional benefit over guideline directed therapy in terms of all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalizations in acute or chronic HF patients, regardless of their ejection fraction.