OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of BNP test for early diagnosis of left ventricular dysfunction in patients at high-risk for heart failure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. SETTING: 7 Primary Care Centres in Madrid (Spain). PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive sample of 204 consecutive asymptomatic patients with high risk for heart failure (Stages A-B, AHA/ACC Classification). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: BNP plasma levels were measured in the clinical setting using Triage BNP Test(®) (Biosite(®)) and an echocardiography was performed in the following 3 days in a single hospital unit as a reference standard. Plasma BNP levels were compared depending on the presence/absence of left ventricular dysfunction (LVD), type and severity degree. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Área under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for BNP assay were calculated. RESULTS: BNP values were significantly higher (P<.001) in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). No significant differences were found for diastolic dysfunction. The best cut-off value to discriminate the patients with LVSD was 71.00 pg/ml, with an Área under the ROC curve of 0.757 (95% CI 0.64-0.87). Sensitivity for LVD diagnosis was 75% (95% CI 50.66-99.34), specificity 70.19% (95% CI 62.81-77.57), positive predictive value (PPV) 20% (95% CI 9.05-30.95), and negative predictive value (NPV) 96.58% (95% CI 92.86-100), with LVSD prevalence of 9.04% in this population. CONCLUSIONS: BNP determinations are of value in diagnosing LVSD in a primary care setting, with similar sensitivities and specificities. Due to the high NPV is useful to rule-out patients for echocardiography.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of BNP test for early diagnosis of left ventricular dysfunction in patients at high-risk for heart failure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. SETTING: 7 Primary Care Centres in Madrid (Spain). PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive sample of 204 consecutive asymptomatic patients with high risk for heart failure (Stages A-B, AHA/ACC Classification). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: BNP plasma levels were measured in the clinical setting using Triage BNP Test(®) (Biosite(®)) and an echocardiography was performed in the following 3 days in a single hospital unit as a reference standard. Plasma BNP levels were compared depending on the presence/absence of left ventricular dysfunction (LVD), type and severity degree. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Área under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) for BNP assay were calculated. RESULTS:BNP values were significantly higher (P<.001) in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). No significant differences were found for diastolic dysfunction. The best cut-off value to discriminate the patients with LVSD was 71.00 pg/ml, with an Área under the ROC curve of 0.757 (95% CI 0.64-0.87). Sensitivity for LVD diagnosis was 75% (95% CI 50.66-99.34), specificity 70.19% (95% CI 62.81-77.57), positive predictive value (PPV) 20% (95% CI 9.05-30.95), and negative predictive value (NPV) 96.58% (95% CI 92.86-100), with LVSD prevalence of 9.04% in this population. CONCLUSIONS:BNP determinations are of value in diagnosing LVSD in a primary care setting, with similar sensitivities and specificities. Due to the high NPV is useful to rule-out patients for echocardiography.
Authors: A Agustí Escasany; M Durán Dalmau; J M Arnau De Bolós; D Rodríguez Cumplido; E Diogène Fadini; J Casas Rodríguez; E Galve Basilio; N Manito Lorite Journal: Rev Esp Cardiol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 4.753
Authors: L Katherine Morrison; Alex Harrison; Padma Krishnaswamy; Radmila Kazanegra; Paul Clopton; Alan Maisel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-01-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: A Luchner; J C Burnett; M Jougasaki; H W Hense; I M Heid; F Muders; G A Riegger; H Schunkert Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 4.844
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: 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: 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: Javier Jacob; Francisco Javier Martín-Sanchez; Pablo Herrero; Oscar Miró; Pere Llorens Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2012-09-08 Impact factor: 1.137