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 concentrationat 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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Julie McLellan; Carl J Heneghan; Rafael Perera; Alison M Clements; Paul P Glasziou; Karen E Kearley; Nicola Pidduck; Nia W Roberts; Sally Tyndel; F Lucy Wright; Clare Bankhead Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2016-12-22
Authors: Cynthia Balion; Robert McKelvie; Andrew C Don-Wauchope; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Mark Oremus; Homa Keshavarz; Stephen A Hill; Ronald A Booth; Usman Ali; Judy A Brown; Amy Bustamam; Nazmul Sohel; Parminder Raina Journal: Heart Fail Rev Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 4.214
Authors: Gianluigi Savarese; Bruno Trimarco; Santo Dellegrottaglie; Maria Prastaro; Francesco Gambardella; Giuseppe Rengo; Dario Leosco; Pasquale Perrone-Filardi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240