Heart failure & cardiomyopathiesMeta-analysis
Efficacy of pulmonary artery pressure monitoring in patients with chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
- random effects meta-analysis
- 67.8% men; 65.8% with EF ≤40%
Authors' conclusion
The use of remote PA pressure monitoring to guide treatment of patients with HF reduces episodes of worsening HF and subsequent hospitalizations.
Study context
- Population
- Outpatients with heart failure (HF) in NYHA classes II–IV, either hospitalized for HF in the prior 12 months or with elevated plasma NT-proBNP
- Participants
- 1,898 outpatients · 3 RCTs
- Comparison
- Pulmonary artery (PA) pressure monitoring vs control
- Outcome
- Total number of HF hospitalizations
- Follow-up
- Mean 14.7 months
Pooled result
Total HF hospitalizations
Hazard ratio
0.70
95% CI 0.58–0.86
P = 0.0005
PA pressure monitoring vs Control
HR 0.70 (95% CI 0.58–0.86); P = 0.0005
As reported in the abstract
Further pooled results
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite of total HF hospitalizations, urgent visits and all-cause mortality | 0.75 (0.61–0.91) | P = 0.0037 | |
| All-cause mortality | 0.92 (0.73–1.16) | ||
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Subgroups, incl. EF phenotype
- No evidence of heterogeneity in the treatment effect
Original publication
Efficacy of pulmonary artery pressure monitoring in patients with chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J. Published 20 May 2023. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad346
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it