BACKGROUND: The N-terminal fragment of cardiac-derived pro-B-type natriuretic peptide is a glycosylated polypeptide. It is unknown whether N-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (proANP) fragments are also covalently modified. We therefore evaluated the clinical performance of 2 distinctly different proANP assays on clinical outcome. METHODS: We examined 474 elderly patients with symptoms of heart failure presenting in a primary healthcare setting. Samples were analyzed with an automated immunoluminometric midregion proANP (MR-proANP) assay and a new processing-independent assay (PIA) developed in our laboratory. The results were compared with Bland-Altman plots, and clinical performance was assessed by generating ROC curves for different clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Despite linear regression results indicating a good correlation (r = 0.85; P < 0.0001), the PIA measured considerably more proANP than the MR-proANP assay (mean difference, 663 pmol/L; SD, 478 pmol/L). In contrast, the clinical performances of the 2 assays [as assessed by the area under the ROC curve (AUC)] in detecting left ventricular dysfunction were similar [proANP PIA, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.63-0.79); MR-proANP assay, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81); P = 0.32]. The prognostic ability to report cardiovascular mortality during a 10-year follow-up revealed AUC values of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.60-0.71) for the proANP PIA and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74) for the MR-proANP assay (P = 0.08, for comparing the 2 assays). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that N-terminal proANP fragments in patient plasma differ from the calibrator peptides used but that the difference does not affect ROC curves in an elderly cohort of patients with mild to moderate heart failure. We suggest that human N-terminal proANP fragments can be covalently modified.
BACKGROUND: The N-terminal fragment of cardiac-derived pro-B-type natriuretic peptide is a glycosylated polypeptide. It is unknown whether N-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (proANP) fragments are also covalently modified. We therefore evaluated the clinical performance of 2 distinctly different proANP assays on clinical outcome. METHODS: We examined 474 elderly patients with symptoms of heart failure presenting in a primary healthcare setting. Samples were analyzed with an automated immunoluminometric midregion proANP (MR-proANP) assay and a new processing-independent assay (PIA) developed in our laboratory. The results were compared with Bland-Altman plots, and clinical performance was assessed by generating ROC curves for different clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Despite linear regression results indicating a good correlation (r = 0.85; P < 0.0001), the PIA measured considerably more proANP than the MR-proANP assay (mean difference, 663 pmol/L; SD, 478 pmol/L). In contrast, the clinical performances of the 2 assays [as assessed by the area under the ROC curve (AUC)] in detecting left ventricular dysfunction were similar [proANPPIA, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.63-0.79); MR-proANP assay, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.81); P = 0.32]. The prognostic ability to report cardiovascular mortality during a 10-year follow-up revealed AUC values of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.60-0.71) for the proANPPIA and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.74) for the MR-proANP assay (P = 0.08, for comparing the 2 assays). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that N-terminal proANP fragments in patient plasma differ from the calibrator peptides used but that the difference does not affect ROC curves in an elderly cohort of patients with mild to moderate heart failure. We suggest that human N-terminal proANP fragments can be covalently modified.
Authors: Lasse H Hansen; Thomas Daugbjerg Madsen; Christoffer K Goth; Henrik Clausen; Yang Chen; Nina Dzhoyashvili; Seethalakshmi R Iyer; S Jeson Sangaralingham; John C Burnett; Jens F Rehfeld; Sergey Y Vakhrushev; Katrine T Schjoldager; Jens P Goetze Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Kirsten C Rasmussen; Michael Højskov; Birgitte Ruhnau; Lisbeth Salling; Tom Pedersen; Jens P Goetze; Niels H Secher Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Christian Fabiansen; Mikkel Lykke; Anne-Louise Hother; Jørgen Koch; Ole Bækgaard Nielsen; Ingrid Hunter; Jens P Goetze; Henrik Friis; Thomas Thymann Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Dirk L Christensen; Diana Espino; Rocío Infante-Ramírez; Mónica S Cervantes-Borunda; Rosa P Hernández-Torres; Antonio E Rivera-Cisneros; Daniel Castillo; Kate Westgate; Dijana Terzic; Soren Brage; Christian Hassager; Jens P Goetze; Jesper Kjaergaard Journal: Extrem Physiol Med Date: 2017-12-11
Authors: Rune Broni Strandby; Rikard Ambrus; Niels H Secher; Jens Peter Goetze; Michael Patrick Achiam; Lars Bo Svendsen Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Laura Oberholzer; Christoph Siebenmann; C Jacob Mikkelsen; Nicklas Junge; Jacob F Piil; Nathan B Morris; Jens P Goetze; Anne-Kristine Meinild Lundby; Lars Nybo; Carsten Lundby Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Bo K Lauridsen; Kasper Iversen; Ingrid Hunter; Morten Bay; Vibeke Kirk; Olav W Nielsen; Henrik Nielsen; Søren Boesgaard; Lars Køber; Jens P Goetze Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 2.692