BACKGROUND: B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is widely accepted in the evaluation of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure. However, little is known of the implications of elevated BNP levels in individuals with preserved systolic function (PSF). AIMS: To investigate the drivers and clinical implications of elevated BNP levels in asymptomatic individuals with established PSF. METHODS: We enrolled 154 individuals who all underwent physical examination, BNP evaluation and Doppler-echocardiographic studies. They were divided into those above and below the median BNP level (50 pg/ml). RESULTS: Independent predictors of higher BNP were older age, more severe left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), reduced E/A ratio and ischaemic heart disease. Survival and multivariable analysis demonstrated more death and/or admission in those above the median BNP (HR: 4.79, p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated BNP is the strongest, independent predictor of serious adverse cardiovascular outcomes in this population and requires closer clinical follow-up.
BACKGROUND:B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is widely accepted in the evaluation of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure. However, little is known of the implications of elevated BNP levels in individuals with preserved systolic function (PSF). AIMS: To investigate the drivers and clinical implications of elevated BNP levels in asymptomatic individuals with established PSF. METHODS: We enrolled 154 individuals who all underwent physical examination, BNP evaluation and Doppler-echocardiographic studies. They were divided into those above and below the median BNP level (50 pg/ml). RESULTS: Independent predictors of higher BNP were older age, more severe left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), reduced E/A ratio and ischaemic heart disease. Survival and multivariable analysis demonstrated more death and/or admission in those above the median BNP (HR: 4.79, p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Elevated BNP is the strongest, independent predictor of serious adverse cardiovascular outcomes in this population and requires closer clinical follow-up.
Authors: Charlotte Kragelund; Bjørn Grønning; Lars Køber; Per Hildebrandt; Rolf Steffensen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T A McDonagh; S D Robb; D R Murdoch; J J Morton; I Ford; C E Morrison; H Tunstall-Pedoe; J J McMurray; H J Dargie Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-01-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J A de Lemos; D A Morrow; J H Bentley; T Omland; M S Sabatine; C H McCabe; C Hall; C P Cannon; E Braunwald Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-10-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: K Yamamoto; J C Burnett; M Jougasaki; R A Nishimura; K R Bailey; Y Saito; K Nakao; M M Redfield Journal: Hypertension Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: M R Cowie; A D Struthers; D A Wood; A J Coats; S G Thompson; P A Poole-Wilson; G C Sutton Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-11-08 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alan H B Wu; Milton Packer; Andrew Smith; Rachel Bijou; Daniel Fink; Johannes Mair; Lars Wallentin; Nina Johnston; Carolyn S Feldcamp; Doris M Haverstick; Charaf E Ahnadi; Andrew Grant; Normand Despres; Barry Bluestein; Farooq Ghani Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2004-03-09 Impact factor: 8.327