BACKGROUND: Whether B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels can be used to screen for ventricular dysfunction in patients at risk of heart failure but without overt symptoms is not known. We examined the characteristics of a BNP test for identifying systolic and diastolic dysfunction in outpatients with stable coronary disease. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 293 outpatients who had stable coronary disease and no history of heart failure, we compared elevations in plasma BNP levels with echocardiography for the diagnosis of systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <55%) and diastolic dysfunction (diastolic dominant pulmonary vein flow with ejection fraction > or =55%). RESULTS: A total of 48 patients (16%) had systolic dysfunction, and among the remaining 245 with preserved systolic function, 31 (13%) had diastolic dysfunction. At the standard cutpoint of >100 pg/mL, an elevated BNP level was 38% sensitive (80% specific) for systolic dysfunction and 55% sensitive (85% specific) for diastolic dysfunction. Negative likelihood ratios were 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6 to 1.0) for systolic dysfunction and 0.5 (95% CI: 0.4 to 0.8) for diastolic dysfunction. Positive likelihood ratios were 1.9 (95% CI: 1.2 to 2.9) for systolic dysfunction and 3.8 (95% CI: 2.4 to 5.9) for diastolic dysfunction. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.59 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.69) for systolic dysfunction and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.87) for diastolic dysfunction. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that BNP is not a useful screening test for asymptomatic ventricular dysfunction in patients with stable coronary disease.
BACKGROUND: Whether B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels can be used to screen for ventricular dysfunction in patients at risk of heart failure but without overt symptoms is not known. We examined the characteristics of a BNP test for identifying systolic and diastolic dysfunction in outpatients with stable coronary disease. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 293 outpatients who had stable coronary disease and no history of heart failure, we compared elevations in plasma BNP levels with echocardiography for the diagnosis of systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <55%) and diastolic dysfunction (diastolic dominant pulmonary vein flow with ejection fraction > or =55%). RESULTS: A total of 48 patients (16%) had systolic dysfunction, and among the remaining 245 with preserved systolic function, 31 (13%) had diastolic dysfunction. At the standard cutpoint of >100 pg/mL, an elevated BNP level was 38% sensitive (80% specific) for systolic dysfunction and 55% sensitive (85% specific) for diastolic dysfunction. Negative likelihood ratios were 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6 to 1.0) for systolic dysfunction and 0.5 (95% CI: 0.4 to 0.8) for diastolic dysfunction. Positive likelihood ratios were 1.9 (95% CI: 1.2 to 2.9) for systolic dysfunction and 3.8 (95% CI: 2.4 to 5.9) for diastolic dysfunction. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.59 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.69) for systolic dysfunction and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.87) for diastolic dysfunction. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that BNP is not a useful screening test for asymptomatic ventricular dysfunction in patients with stable coronary disease.
Authors: Alan S Maisel; Padma Krishnaswamy; Richard M Nowak; James McCord; Judd E Hollander; Philippe Duc; Torbjørn Omland; Alan B Storrow; William T Abraham; Alan H B Wu; Paul Clopton; Philippe G Steg; Arne Westheim; Catherine Wold Knudsen; Alberto Perez; Radmila Kazanegra; Howard C Herrmann; Peter A McCullough Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-07-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Margaret M Redfield; Richard J Rodeheffer; Steven J Jacobsen; Douglas W Mahoney; Kent R Bailey; John C Burnett Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-09-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Maria Ansari; Nelson B Schiller; Barry Massie; Mary A Whooley Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-12-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M A Pfeffer; E Braunwald; L A Moyé; L Basta; E J Brown; T E Cuddy; B R Davis; E M Geltman; S Goldman; G C Flaker Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1992-09-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Peter A McCullough; Richard M Nowak; James McCord; Judd E Hollander; Howard C Herrmann; Philippe G Steg; Philippe Duc; Arne Westheim; Torbjørn Omland; Cathrine Wold Knudsen; Alan B Storrow; William T Abraham; Sumant Lamba; Alan H B Wu; Alberto Perez; Paul Clopton; Padma Krishnaswamy; Radmila Kazanegra; Alan S Maisel Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-07-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: M A Konstam; M W Kronenberg; M F Rousseau; J E Udelson; J Melin; D Stewart; N Dolan; T R Edens; S Ahn; D Kinan Journal: Circulation Date: 1993-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ramachandran S Vasan; Emelia J Benjamin; Martin G Larson; Eric P Leip; Thomas J Wang; Peter W F Wilson; Daniel Levy Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-09-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andreas P Kalogeropoulos; Vasiliki V Georgiopoulou; Christopher R deFilippi; John S Gottdiener; Javed Butler Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-02
Authors: David C M Corteville; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Alan H B Wu; Sadia Ali; Nelson B Schiller; Mary A Whooley Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-03-12
Authors: Joost P van Melle; Mariska Bot; Peter de Jonge; Rudolf A de Boer; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Mary A Whooley Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Venkataraman Rajaram; Arthur T Evans; Gloria C Caldito; Russell F Kelly; Leon Fogelfeld; Henry R Black; Rami Doukky Journal: Open Cardiovasc Med J Date: 2011-08-22