Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the prognostic effect of carbohydrate antigen-125 (CA125)-guided therapy (CA125 strategy) versus standard of care (SOC) after a hospitalization for acute heart failure (AHF).
Background: CA125 has emerged as a surrogate of fluid overload and inflammatory status in AHF. After an episode of AHF admission, elevated values of this marker at baseline as well as its longitudinal profile relate to adverse outcomes, making it a potential tool for treatment guiding.
Methods: In a prospective multicenter randomized trial, 380 patients discharged for AHF and high CA125 were randomly assigned to the CA125 strategy (n = 187) or SOC (n = 193). The aim in the CA125 strategy was to reduce CA125 to ≤35 U/ml by up or down diuretic dose, enforcing the use of statins, and tightening patient monitoring. The primary endpoint was 1-year composite of death or AHF readmission. Treatment strategies were compared as a time to first event and longitudinally.
Results: Patients allocated to the CA125 strategy were more frequently visited, and treated with ambulatory intravenous loop diuretics and statins. Likewise, doses of oral loop diuretics and aldosterone receptor blockers were more frequently modified. The CA125 strategy resulted in a significant reduction of the primary endpoint, whether evaluated as time to first event (66 events vs. 84 events; p = 0.017) or as recurrent events (85 events vs. 165 events; incidence rate ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.28 to 0.82; p = 0.008). The effect was driven by significantly reducing rehospitalizations but not mortality.
Conclusions: The CA125 strategy was superior to the SOC in terms of reducing the risk of the composite of 1-year death or AHF readmission. This effect was mainly driven by significantly reducing the rate of rehospitalizations. (Carbohydrate Antigen-125-guided Therapy in Heart Failure [CHANCE-HF]; NCT02008110).
Keywords: biomarker guided-therapy; carbohydrate antigen-125; clinical outcomes; clinical trial; heart failure.
Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.