Jennifer A Schaub1, Steven G Coca2, Dennis G Moledina1, Mark Gentry3, Jeffrey M Testani1, Chirag R Parikh4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine and Applied Translational Research, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 2. Ichan School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 3. John Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven. 4. Department of Internal Medicine and Applied Translational Research, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: chirag.parikh@yale.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) has different diagnostic and prognostic utility in patients with renal dysfunction. BACKGROUND: Patients with renal dysfunction have higher NT-proBNP, which may complicate interpretation for diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) or prognosis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE through August 2014 for studies with a subgroup analysis by renal function of the diagnostic or prognostic ability of NT-proBNP. RESULTS: For diagnosis, 9 studies were included with 4,287 patients and 1,325 ADHF events. Patients were mostly divided into subgroups with and without renal dysfunction by an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). In patients with renal dysfunction, the area under the curve (AUC) for NT-proBNP ranged from 0.66 to 0.89 with a median cutpoint of 1,980 pg/ml, while the AUC ranged from 0.72 to 0.95 with a cutpoint of 450 pg/ml in patients with preserved renal function. For prognosis, 30 studies with 32,203 patients were included, and mortality in patients with renal dysfunction (25.4%) was twice that of patients with preserved renal function (12.2%). The unadjusted pooled risk ratio for NT-proBNP and mortality was 3.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.53 to 3.58) in patients with preserved renal function and was similar in patients with renal dysfunction (3.25; 95% CI: 2.45 to 4.30). Upon meta-regression, heterogeneity was partially explained if patients with heart failure or coronary artery disease were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: NT-proBNP retains utility for diagnosis of ADHF in patients with renal dysfunction with higher cutpoints. Elevated NT-proBNP confers a worse prognosis regardless of renal function.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) has different diagnostic and prognostic utility in patients with renal dysfunction. BACKGROUND:Patients with renal dysfunction have higher NT-proBNP, which may complicate interpretation for diagnosis of acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) or prognosis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE through August 2014 for studies with a subgroup analysis by renal function of the diagnostic or prognostic ability of NT-proBNP. RESULTS: For diagnosis, 9 studies were included with 4,287 patients and 1,325 ADHF events. Patients were mostly divided into subgroups with and without renal dysfunction by an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 ml/min/1.73 m(2). In patients with renal dysfunction, the area under the curve (AUC) for NT-proBNP ranged from 0.66 to 0.89 with a median cutpoint of 1,980 pg/ml, while the AUC ranged from 0.72 to 0.95 with a cutpoint of 450 pg/ml in patients with preserved renal function. For prognosis, 30 studies with 32,203 patients were included, and mortality in patients with renal dysfunction (25.4%) was twice that of patients with preserved renal function (12.2%). The unadjusted pooled risk ratio for NT-proBNP and mortality was 3.01 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.53 to 3.58) in patients with preserved renal function and was similar in patients with renal dysfunction (3.25; 95% CI: 2.45 to 4.30). Upon meta-regression, heterogeneity was partially explained if patients with heart failure or coronary artery disease were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS:NT-proBNP retains utility for diagnosis of ADHF in patients with renal dysfunction with higher cutpoints. Elevated NT-proBNP confers a worse prognosis regardless of renal function.
Authors: Mariell Jessup; William T Abraham; Donald E Casey; Arthur M Feldman; Gary S Francis; Theodore G Ganiats; Marvin A Konstam; Donna M Mancini; Peter S Rahko; Marc A Silver; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Clyde W Yancy Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Brenda K Huntley; Sharon M Sandberg; Denise M Heublein; S Jeson Sangaralingham; John C Burnett; Tomoko Ichiki Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 8.790
Authors: Alexander G Semenov; Natalia N Tamm; Karina R Seferian; Alexander B Postnikov; Natalia S Karpova; Daria V Serebryanaya; Ekaterina V Koshkina; Mihail I Krasnoselsky; Alexey G Katrukha Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2010-05-20 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Cecile Gorissen; Ruben Baumgarten; Monique de Groot; Eric van Haren; Hans Kragten; Mathie Leers Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2007 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Stephen J Greene; G Michael Felker; Anna Giczewska; Andreas P Kalogeropoulos; Andrew P Ambrosy; Hrishikesh Chakraborty; Adam D DeVore; Marat Fudim; Steven E McNulty; Robert J Mentz; Muthiah Vaduganathan; Adrian F Hernandez; Javed Butler Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Insa E Emrich; Anja L Scheuer; Kyrill S Rogacev; Felix Mahfoud; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Danilo Fliser; Stephan H Schirmer; Michael Böhm; Gunnar H Heine Journal: Clin Kidney J Date: 2021-10-28
Authors: Amer N Kadri; Roop Kaw; Yasser Al-Khadra; Hasan Abuamsha; Keyvan Ravakhah; Adrian V Hernandez; Wai Hong Wilson Tang Journal: Arch Med Sci Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 3.318