Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 8, 2026

Percutaneous Contrast Echocardiography-guided Intramyocardial Injection and Cell Delivery in a Large Preclinical Model
Published on: January 21, 2018
Biomarker-Guided Versus Clinically Guided Management Strategies for Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and
Hao Zhou1,2, Ting Liu1,2, Fuxia Lan1,2
1Department of Cardiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, 610041 Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Insights
Biomarker-guided therapy for heart failure (HF) showed a trend toward reduced mortality and hospitalizations, but evidence quality is low. Further high-quality trials are needed to confirm benefits and guide clinical practice.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Clinical Trials
- Biomarker Research
Background:
- The clinical utility of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided therapy in heart failure (HF) management is debated.
- Existing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) requires synthesis to clarify its impact on patient outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct a meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating biomarker-guided HF therapy versus clinically guided management.
- To determine if biomarker-guided strategies reduce all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalizations.
Main Methods:
- Systematic literature search of major databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science) up to May 2025.
- Meta-analysis of 17 RCTs (5069 patients) using random-effects models.
- Performed subgroup, sensitivity, and trial sequential analyses (TSA) to assess evidence robustness and potential bias.
Main Results:
- Initial meta-analysis indicated significant reductions in all-cause mortality (RR 0.84) and HF hospitalizations (RR 0.79) with biomarker-guided therapy.
- Sensitivity analysis excluding low-risk-of-bias studies rendered mortality benefit non-significant.
- Potential publication bias was detected (Egger's test, p=0.0285), and TSA suggested insufficient cumulative evidence.
Conclusions:
- The quality of evidence for biomarker-guided HF therapy is rated as 'very low' (GRADE assessment).
- Methodological limitations in primary studies and potential publication bias compromise findings.
- Current evidence is insufficient to support routine clinical use; large-scale, high-quality RCTs are necessary.
Background:
The clinical value of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP)-guided therapy for improving outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) remains controversial. Thus, this meta-analysis synthesizes the available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether a biomarker-guided strategy reduces all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalizations compared with clinically guided management.
Methods:
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to May 2025 for RCTs comparing biomarker-guided versus clinically guided management in patients with HF. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using a random-effects model. We performed extensive supplementary analyses, including a subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA).
Results:
We included 17 articles (reporting on 17 distinct RCTs) comprising 5069 patients. The primary meta-analysis showed that biomarker-guided therapy was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.96; I2 = 12.2%) and HF-related hospitalizations (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96; I2 = 53.7%). However, the robustness of these findings was undermined by subsequent analyses. Meanwhile, a sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with a low risk of bias rendered the mortality benefit non-significant (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79-1.03). Egger's test indicated potential publication bias (p = 0.0285), and TSA suggested the cumulative evidence was insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion.
Conclusions:
Although there is a trend toward benefit, the existing evidence for biomarker-guided HF therapy is deemed "very low" quality based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment. The results were compromised by methodological deficiencies in primary studies and potential publication bias. Therefore, the evidence is inadequate to support the routine use of this strategy in clinical practice. Further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are warranted.
The Prospero Registration:
CRD420250652134, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420250652134.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure Drugs: β-Blockers
Heart Failure IV: Classification and Diagnostic Evaluation
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Heart Failure VII: Nursing Interventions
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care

