Baseline Functional Class and Therapeutic Efficacy of Common Heart Failure Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND

New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class provides important prognostic information and is often used to select patients for cardiovascular therapies, yet, the effect of NYHA class on therapeutic efficacy has not been systematically studied.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis we compared the relative and absolute mortality benefit of 5 common heart failure interventions (angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors, β-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists [MRAs], implantable cardioverter defibrillator [ICD], and cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]) across NYHA class. We included 26 randomized clinical trials of these interventions that reported all-cause mortality stratified according to baseline NYHA class in 36,406 patients.

RESULTS

Pooled relative risk for NYHA I/II vs. III/IV strata were similar for ACE inhibitors (0.90 vs. 0.88), β-blockers (0.72 vs. 0.79), MRA (0.79 vs. 0.75), and CRT (0.80 vs. 0.80), with all heterogeneity P > 0.8. Conversely, ICD efficacy was greater for class I/II (relative risk, 0.65 vs 0.86, heterogeneity P = 0.02). The pooled absolute risk difference was smaller for NYHA I/II vs III/IV with ACE inhibitors (-0.02 vs. -0.06, P = 0.12), β-blockers (-0.02 vs. -0.05, P = 0.047), MRA (-0.03 vs. -0.11, P = 0.001), and CRT (-0.01 vs. -0.04, P = 0.036), but was similar across NYHA class for the ICD (-0.07 vs. -0.05; P = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Relative mortality reductions with most interventions were independent of baseline NYHA class. However, ICD efficacy was greater with NYHA I/II vs. III/IV limitation, and absolute benefit was greater with higher NYHA class. For interventions other than the ICD, there is little evidence supporting use of NYHA class as a rigid criterion for selecting heart failure therapies.