4.5 Article

Erythropoietin treatment in patients with chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis

Journal

HEART
Volume 95, Issue 16, Pages 1309-1314

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2008.161091

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Netherlands Heart Foundation [D97-017]
  2. The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research [825-07-011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Anaemia is common in patients with chronic heart failure (HF), and erythropoiesis stimulating proteins (ESPs) are frequently used for its treatment. However, recent studies in patients with malignancies and renal failure have raised concerns about the safety of these agents. Objective: To determine whether treatment of anaemic patients with chronic HF with ESPs is associated with an effect on morbidity and mortality. Data sources: A systematic literature search in Medline, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register Database and ClinicalTrials.gov through July 2008 was performed. Study selection: Randomised clinical trials comparing the effect of ESP treatment with placebo or usual care in anaemic patients with HF were included. Results: Seven randomised controlled trials were identified that enrolled 650 patients, of whom 363 were treated with ESPs and 287 with placebo. ESP treatment had a significantly lower risk of HF hospitalisation (risk ratio (RR)= 0.59; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.86; p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in the mortality risk between the two groups (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.23; p = 0.21). No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of hypertension or venous thrombosis. Conclusions: In chronic HF, treatment with ESPs is not associated with a higher mortality rate or more adverse events, whereas a beneficial effect on HF hospitalisation is seen. These outcomes are in contrast with studies in cancer and kidney disease, and support a large phase III morbidity and mortality trial of anaemia correction in patients with chronic HF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available