Developments in Diagnosis and Treatment of Heart Failure in 2019

    Authors

    DOI

    https://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2020.159

    Full Text

    ## Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients without heart failure: a Cochrane systematic review (translation of the Cochrane systematic review abstract published in: Sweeney C, Ryan F, Ledwidge M, Ryan C, McDonald K, Watson C, et al. Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for the prevantion of cardiovascular events in patients without heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 15;10:CD013015. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013015.pub2 ) ( 6 ) Natriuretic peptides (NPs), including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), are well-established biomarkers for the detection and diagnostic evaluation of heart failure. They are of interest for CVD prevention because they are secreted by the heart as a protective response to cardiovascular stress, strain, and damage. Therefore, measuring NP levels in patients without heart failure may be valuable for risk stratification, to identify those at highest risk of CVD who would benefit most from intensive risk reduction measures. ## Objectives To assess the effects of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment for people with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure. ## Search methods Searches of the following bibliographic databases were conducted up to 9 July 2019: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Three clinical trial registries were also searched in July 2019. ## Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with one or more cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure, which compared NP-based screening and subsequent NP-guided treatment versus standard care in all settings (i.e. community, hospital). ## Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data and to verify crucial study characteristics. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a ‘Summary of findings’ table. ## Main results We included two randomized controlled trials (three reports) with 1674 participants, with mean age between 64.1 and 67.8 years. Follow-up ranged from 2 years to mean 4.3 years. For primary outcome measures, effect estimates from a single study showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on cardiovascular mortality in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.17; 1 study; 300 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated that in comparison to standard care, NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.68; 2 studies; 1674 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 163 per 1000 in the control group and 85 (95% CI 65 to 111) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group. When secondary outcome measures were evaluated, evidence from a pooled analysis showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.35; 2 studies; 1354 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis indicates that NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92; 2 studies; 1354 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 601 per 1000 in the control group and 499 (95% CI 457 to 553) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group. The effect estimate from a single study indicates that NP-guided treatment reduced the risk of ventricular dysfunction (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; 1374 participants; high-quality evidence). The risk in this study’s control group was 87 per 1000, compared with 53 (95% CI 36 to 79) per 1000 with NP-guided treatment. Results from the same study show that NP-guided treatment does not affect change in NP level at the end of follow-up, relative to standard care (MD -4.06 pg/mL, 95% CI -15.07 to 6.95; 1 study; 1374 participants; moderate-quality evidence). ## Authors’ conclusions This review shows that NP-guided treatment is likely to reduce ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalization for patients who have cardiovascular risk factors and who do not have heart failure. Effects on mortality and natriuretic peptide levels are less certain. Neither of the included studies were powered to evaluate mortality. Available evidence shows uncertainty regarding the effects of NP-guided treatment on both cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality; very low event numbers resulted in a high degree of imprecision in these effect estimates. Evidence also shows that NP-guided treatment may not affect NP level at the end of follow-up. As both trials included in our review were pragmatic studies, non-blinding of patients and practices may have biased results towards a finding of equivalence. Further studies with more adequately powered sample sizes and longer duration of follow-up are required to evaluate the effect of NP-guided treatment on mortality. As two trials are ongoing, one of which is a large multicenter trial, it is hoped that future iterations of this review will benefit from larger sample sizes across a wider geographical area. ## Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a Cochrane systematic review (translation of the Cochrane systematic review abstract published in: Martin N, Manoharan K, Thomas J, Davies C, Lumbers RT. Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 28;6:CD012721. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012721.pub2 ) ( 7 ) Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. There is uncertainty whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and a comprehensive review of the evidence is required. ## Objectives To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. ## Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trial registries on 25 July 2017 to identify eligible studies. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional studies. There were no language or date restrictions. ## Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials with a parallel group design enrolling adult participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40 percent. ## Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. The outcomes assessed included cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalization, hyperkalemia, all-cause mortality and quality of life. Risk ratios (RR) and, where possible, hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous data, mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated. We contacted trialists where necessary to obtain missing data. ## Main results 37 randomized controlled trials (207 reports) were included across all comparisons with a total of 18,311 participants. Ten studies (3087 participants) investigating beta-blockers (BB) were included. A pooled analysis indicated a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (15% of participants in the intervention arm versus 19% in the control arm; RR 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; 3 studies). However, the quality of evidence was low and no effect on cardiovascular mortality was observed when the analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; 643 participants; 1 study). There was no effect on all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization or quality of life measures, however there is uncertainty about these effects given the limited evidence available. 12 studies (4408 participants) investigating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) were included with the quality of evidence assessed as moderate. MRA treatment reduced heart failure hospitalization (11% of participants in the intervention arm versus 14% in the control arm; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB 41; 3714 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence) however, little or no effect on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and quality of life measures was observed. MRA treatment was associated with a greater risk of hyperkalaemia (16% of participants in the intervention group versus 8% in the control group; RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; 4291 participants; 6 studies; high-quality evidence). Eight studies (2061 participants) investigating angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as moderate. The evidence suggested that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or quality of life. Data for the effect of ACEI on hyperkalaemia were only available from one of the included studies. Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as high. The evidence suggested that treatment with ARB has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or quality of life. ARB was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalaemia (0.9% of participants in the intervention group versus 0.5% in the control group; RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; 2 studies; high-quality evidence). We identified a single ongoing placebo-controlled study investigating the effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. ## Authors’ conclusions There is evidence that MRA treatment reduces heart failure hospitalization in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, however the effects on mortality related outcomes and quality of life remain unclear. The available evidence for beta-blockers, ACEI, ARB and ARNI is limited and it remains uncertain whether these treatments have a role in the treatment of HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication for their use. This comprehensive review highlights a persistent gap in the evidence that is currently being addressed through several large ongoing clinical trials. ## Disease management interventions for heart failure: a Cochrane systematic review (translation of the Cochrane systematic review abstract published in: Takeda A, Martin N, Taylor RS, Taylor SJ. Disease management interventions for heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 8;1:CD002752. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002752.pub4 ) ( 8 ) Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012. ## Objectives To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes. ## Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions. ## Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months’ follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions. ## Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. ## Main results We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorized as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries. Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126). Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32). We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44). Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455). Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care. Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life. Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective. ## Authors’ conclusions We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness. The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome.

    Cardiologia Croatica
    Back to search

    Developments in Diagnosis and Treatment of Heart Failure in 2019

    Other
    Issue7-8
    Published
    Pages159-66
    PDF via DOIhttps://doi.org/10.15836/ccar2020.159

    Authors

    Duška Glavaš*ORCIDCroatian Cardiac Society, Croatia
    Mario IvanušaORCIDCroatian Cardiac Society, Croatia

    Full Text

    ## Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients without heart failure: a Cochrane systematic review (translation of the Cochrane systematic review abstract published in: Sweeney C, Ryan F, Ledwidge M, Ryan C, McDonald K, Watson C, et al. Natriuretic peptide-guided treatment for the prevantion of cardiovascular events in patients without heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 15;10:CD013015. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013015.pub2 ) ( 6 ) Natriuretic peptides (NPs), including B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), are well-established biomarkers for the detection and diagnostic evaluation of heart failure. They are of interest for CVD prevention because they are secreted by the heart as a protective response to cardiovascular stress, strain, and damage. Therefore, measuring NP levels in patients without heart failure may be valuable for risk stratification, to identify those at highest risk of CVD who would benefit most from intensive risk reduction measures. ## Objectives To assess the effects of natriuretic peptide (NP)-guided treatment for people with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure. ## Search methods Searches of the following bibliographic databases were conducted up to 9 July 2019: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Three clinical trial registries were also searched in July 2019. ## Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials enrolling adults with one or more cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure, which compared NP-based screening and subsequent NP-guided treatment versus standard care in all settings (i.e. community, hospital). ## Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous data. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing data and to verify crucial study characteristics. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, two review authors independently assessed the quality of the evidence and GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager to create a ‘Summary of findings’ table. ## Main results We included two randomized controlled trials (three reports) with 1674 participants, with mean age between 64.1 and 67.8 years. Follow-up ranged from 2 years to mean 4.3 years. For primary outcome measures, effect estimates from a single study showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on cardiovascular mortality in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and without heart failure (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.17; 1 study; 300 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated that in comparison to standard care, NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of cardiovascular hospitalization (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.68; 2 studies; 1674 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 163 per 1000 in the control group and 85 (95% CI 65 to 111) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group. When secondary outcome measures were evaluated, evidence from a pooled analysis showed uncertainty for the effect of NP-guided treatment on all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.35; 2 studies; 1354 participants; low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis indicates that NP-guided treatment probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospitalization (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.92; 2 studies; 1354 participants; moderate-quality evidence). This corresponds to a risk of 601 per 1000 in the control group and 499 (95% CI 457 to 553) per 1000 in the NP-guided treatment group. The effect estimate from a single study indicates that NP-guided treatment reduced the risk of ventricular dysfunction (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; 1374 participants; high-quality evidence). The risk in this study’s control group was 87 per 1000, compared with 53 (95% CI 36 to 79) per 1000 with NP-guided treatment. Results from the same study show that NP-guided treatment does not affect change in NP level at the end of follow-up, relative to standard care (MD -4.06 pg/mL, 95% CI -15.07 to 6.95; 1 study; 1374 participants; moderate-quality evidence). ## Authors’ conclusions This review shows that NP-guided treatment is likely to reduce ventricular dysfunction and cardiovascular and all-cause hospitalization for patients who have cardiovascular risk factors and who do not have heart failure. Effects on mortality and natriuretic peptide levels are less certain. Neither of the included studies were powered to evaluate mortality. Available evidence shows uncertainty regarding the effects of NP-guided treatment on both cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality; very low event numbers resulted in a high degree of imprecision in these effect estimates. Evidence also shows that NP-guided treatment may not affect NP level at the end of follow-up. As both trials included in our review were pragmatic studies, non-blinding of patients and practices may have biased results towards a finding of equivalence. Further studies with more adequately powered sample sizes and longer duration of follow-up are required to evaluate the effect of NP-guided treatment on mortality. As two trials are ongoing, one of which is a large multicenter trial, it is hoped that future iterations of this review will benefit from larger sample sizes across a wider geographical area. ## Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a Cochrane systematic review (translation of the Cochrane systematic review abstract published in: Martin N, Manoharan K, Thomas J, Davies C, Lumbers RT. Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 28;6:CD012721. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012721.pub2 ) ( 7 ) Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. There is uncertainty whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and a comprehensive review of the evidence is required. ## Objectives To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. ## Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and two clinical trial registries on 25 July 2017 to identify eligible studies. Reference lists from primary studies and review articles were checked for additional studies. There were no language or date restrictions. ## Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials with a parallel group design enrolling adult participants with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40 percent. ## Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. The outcomes assessed included cardiovascular mortality, heart failure hospitalization, hyperkalemia, all-cause mortality and quality of life. Risk ratios (RR) and, where possible, hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous data, mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) were calculated. We contacted trialists where necessary to obtain missing data. ## Main results 37 randomized controlled trials (207 reports) were included across all comparisons with a total of 18,311 participants. Ten studies (3087 participants) investigating beta-blockers (BB) were included. A pooled analysis indicated a reduction in cardiovascular mortality (15% of participants in the intervention arm versus 19% in the control arm; RR 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; 3 studies). However, the quality of evidence was low and no effect on cardiovascular mortality was observed when the analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; 643 participants; 1 study). There was no effect on all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization or quality of life measures, however there is uncertainty about these effects given the limited evidence available. 12 studies (4408 participants) investigating mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) were included with the quality of evidence assessed as moderate. MRA treatment reduced heart failure hospitalization (11% of participants in the intervention arm versus 14% in the control arm; RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB 41; 3714 participants; 3 studies; moderate-quality evidence) however, little or no effect on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and quality of life measures was observed. MRA treatment was associated with a greater risk of hyperkalaemia (16% of participants in the intervention group versus 8% in the control group; RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; 4291 participants; 6 studies; high-quality evidence). Eight studies (2061 participants) investigating angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as moderate. The evidence suggested that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or quality of life. Data for the effect of ACEI on hyperkalaemia were only available from one of the included studies. Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) were included with the overall quality of evidence assessed as high. The evidence suggested that treatment with ARB has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or quality of life. ARB was associated with an increased risk of hyperkalaemia (0.9% of participants in the intervention group versus 0.5% in the control group; RR 1.88; 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; 2 studies; high-quality evidence). We identified a single ongoing placebo-controlled study investigating the effect of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI) in people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. ## Authors’ conclusions There is evidence that MRA treatment reduces heart failure hospitalization in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, however the effects on mortality related outcomes and quality of life remain unclear. The available evidence for beta-blockers, ACEI, ARB and ARNI is limited and it remains uncertain whether these treatments have a role in the treatment of HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication for their use. This comprehensive review highlights a persistent gap in the evidence that is currently being addressed through several large ongoing clinical trials. ## Disease management interventions for heart failure: a Cochrane systematic review (translation of the Cochrane systematic review abstract published in: Takeda A, Martin N, Taylor RS, Taylor SJ. Disease management interventions for heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 8;1:CD002752. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002752.pub4 ) ( 8 ) Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012. ## Objectives To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes. ## Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions. ## Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months’ follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions. ## Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. ## Main results We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorized as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries. Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126). Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32). We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44). Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455). Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care. Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life. Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective. ## Authors’ conclusions We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness. The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome.