Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2023
Efficacy of implantable haemodynamic monitoring in heart failure across ranges of ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Curtain James P, Lee Matthew M Y, McMurray John Jv, Gardner Roy S, Petrie Mark C, Jhund Pardeep S
Аннотация
AIMS: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of implantable haemodynamic monitoring (IHM)-guided care.
METHODS: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for RCTs of IHM in patients with heart failure (HF). Outcomes were examined in total (first and recurrent) event analyses.
RESULTS: Five trials comparing IHM-guided care with standard care alone were identified and included 2710 patients across ejection fraction (EF) ranges. Data were available for 628 patients (23.2%) with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (EF ≥50%) and 2023 patients (74.6%) with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF <50%). Chronicle, CardioMEMS and HeartPOD IHMs were used. In all patients, regardless of EF, IHM-guided care reduced total HF hospitalisations (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82) and total worsening HF events (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). In patients with HFrEF, IHM-guided care reduced total worsening HF events (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86). The effect of IHM-guided care on total worsening HF events in patients with HFpEF was uncertain (fixed-effect model: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; random-effects model: HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.14). IHM-guided care did not reduce mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20). IHM-guided care reduced all-cause mortality and total worsening HF events (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF across all EFs, IHM-guided care reduced total HF hospitalisations and worsening HF events. This benefit was consistent in patients with HFrEF but not consistent in HFpEF. Further trials with pre-specified analyses of patients with an EF of ≥50% are required.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021253905.
METHODS: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE were searched for RCTs of IHM in patients with heart failure (HF). Outcomes were examined in total (first and recurrent) event analyses.
RESULTS: Five trials comparing IHM-guided care with standard care alone were identified and included 2710 patients across ejection fraction (EF) ranges. Data were available for 628 patients (23.2%) with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (EF ≥50%) and 2023 patients (74.6%) with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF <50%). Chronicle, CardioMEMS and HeartPOD IHMs were used. In all patients, regardless of EF, IHM-guided care reduced total HF hospitalisations (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82) and total worsening HF events (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.84). In patients with HFrEF, IHM-guided care reduced total worsening HF events (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86). The effect of IHM-guided care on total worsening HF events in patients with HFpEF was uncertain (fixed-effect model: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; random-effects model: HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.14). IHM-guided care did not reduce mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.20). IHM-guided care reduced all-cause mortality and total worsening HF events (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.88).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF across all EFs, IHM-guided care reduced total HF hospitalisations and worsening HF events. This benefit was consistent in patients with HFrEF but not consistent in HFpEF. Further trials with pre-specified analyses of patients with an EF of ≥50% are required.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021253905.