CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Two-year outcomes following unprotected left main stenting with first vs new-generation drug-eluting stents: the FINE registry. EuroIntervention. Successful bailout stenting strategy against lethal coronary dissection involving left main bifurcation Discrepancies in Measurement of the Thoracic Aorta: JACC Review Topic of the Week Management of left main disease: an update Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main and Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: Do We Have the Evidence? Impact of epicardial adipose tissue on cardiovascular haemodynamics, metabolic profile, and prognosis in heart failure P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy with Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement During Pregnancy Health Status After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Original ResearchVolume 72, Issue 21, November 2018

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Economic and Quality-of-Life Outcomes of Natriuretic Peptide–Guided Therapy for Heart Failure

DB Mark, PA Cowper, KJ Anstrom et al. Keywords: biomarker; economics; heart failure; left ventricular dysfunction; quality of life

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - The GUIDE-IT (GUIDing Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment in Heart Failure) trial prospectively compared the efficacy of an N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)guided heart failure treatment strategy (target NT-proBNP level <1,000 pg/ml) with optimal medical therapy alone in high-risk patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. When the study was stopped for futility, 894 patients had been enrolled.

 

OBJECTIVES - The purpose of this study was to assess treatment-related quality-of-life (QOL) and economic outcomes in the GUIDE-IT trial.

 

METHODS - The authors prospectively collected a battery of QOL instruments at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-randomization (collection rates 90% to 99% of those eligible). The principal pre-specified QOL measures were the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Overall Summary Score and the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI). Cost data were collected for 735 (97%) U.S. patients.

 

RESULTS - Baseline variables were well balanced in the 446 patients randomized to the NT-proBNPguided therapy and 448 to usual care. Both the KCCQ and the DASI improved over the first 6 months, but no evidence was found for a strategy-related difference (mean difference [biomarker-guided usual care] at 24 months of follow-up 2.0 for DASI [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3 to 5.3] and 1.1 for KCCQ [95% CI: 3.7 to 5.9]). Total winsorized costs averaged $5,919 higher in the biomarker-guided strategy (95% CI: $1,795, +$13,602) over 15-month median follow-up.

 

CONCLUSIONS - A strategy of NT-proBNPguided HF therapy had higher total costs and was not more effective than usual care in improving QOL outcomes in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction. (Guiding Evidence Based Therapy Using Biomarker Intensified Treatment [GUIDE-IT]; NCT01685840)