Lars Heining1, Christian Giesa1, Santiago Ewig2. 1. Thoraxzentrum Ruhrgebiet, Kliniken für Pneumologie und Infektiologie, EVK Herne und Augusta-Kranken-Anstalt Bochum, Bergstrasse 26, 44791, Bochum, Germany. 2. Thoraxzentrum Ruhrgebiet, Kliniken für Pneumologie und Infektiologie, EVK Herne und Augusta-Kranken-Anstalt Bochum, Bergstrasse 26, 44791, Bochum, Germany. ewig@augusta-bochum.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evaluation of the role of novel biomarkers in the management of cardiac and pulmonary conditions has received particular attention in recent years. A further particular perspective is the use of biomarker panels in the evaluation of patients presenting with acute dyspnea. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated three biomarkers (MR-proANP, PCT, and MR-proADM) in consecutive patients presenting with acute dyspnea in a medical emergency unit during a 4-week period. Patients received a final diagnosis. Biomarkers were tested for their potential to predict diagnoses and survival. No intervention was done. RESULTS: Overall, n = 172 patients were included. Of these, 32.6 % had acute heart failure, 16.9 % pneumonia, and 5.8 % died. MR-proANP was the highest in patients with acute heart failure and lung embolism. Dyspnea scores and levels of MR-pro-ANP correlated positively. MR-proANP achieved an AUC of 0.83 for the diagnosis of acute heart failure. Using a cut-off of 120 pmol/l, sensitivity was 91.1 % and specificity 50 %. PPV was 46.8 % and NPV 92.1 %. In patients with MR-proANP >300 pmol/l, PPV raised to 67.3 %. MR-proADM had an AUC of 0.84 for the prediction of death. PPV was 16 % and NPV 98.4 %. The AUC of PCT was 0.74 for the diagnosis of pneumonia. Using a cut-off of 0.25 ng/ml, PCT had a sensitivity of 44.8 % and a specificity of 85.3 %. PPV was 38.2 and NPV 88.4 %. Using a lower cut-off of <0.1 ng/ml, NPV reached 92.9 %. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of three biomarkers (MR-proANP, PCT, and MR-proADM) in patients presenting to the emergency unit with acute dyspnea provides information about the probability of acute heart failure, nonsurvival, and pneumonia. These biomarkers achieve low to moderate positive predictive values (PPV) and high negative predictive values (NPV).
BACKGROUND: The evaluation of the role of novel biomarkers in the management of cardiac and pulmonary conditions has received particular attention in recent years. A further particular perspective is the use of biomarker panels in the evaluation of patients presenting with acute dyspnea. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated three biomarkers (MR-proANP, PCT, and MR-proADM) in consecutive patients presenting with acute dyspnea in a medical emergency unit during a 4-week period. Patients received a final diagnosis. Biomarkers were tested for their potential to predict diagnoses and survival. No intervention was done. RESULTS: Overall, n = 172 patients were included. Of these, 32.6 % had acute heart failure, 16.9 % pneumonia, and 5.8 % died. MR-proANP was the highest in patients with acute heart failure and lung embolism. Dyspnea scores and levels of MR-pro-ANP correlated positively. MR-proANP achieved an AUC of 0.83 for the diagnosis of acute heart failure. Using a cut-off of 120 pmol/l, sensitivity was 91.1 % and specificity 50 %. PPV was 46.8 % and NPV 92.1 %. In patients with MR-proANP >300 pmol/l, PPV raised to 67.3 %. MR-proADM had an AUC of 0.84 for the prediction of death. PPV was 16 % and NPV 98.4 %. The AUC of PCT was 0.74 for the diagnosis of pneumonia. Using a cut-off of 0.25 ng/ml, PCT had a sensitivity of 44.8 % and a specificity of 85.3 %. PPV was 38.2 and NPV 88.4 %. Using a lower cut-off of <0.1 ng/ml, NPV reached 92.9 %. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of three biomarkers (MR-proANP, PCT, and MR-proADM) in patients presenting to the emergency unit with acute dyspnea provides information about the probability of acute heart failure, nonsurvival, and pneumonia. These biomarkers achieve low to moderate positive predictive values (PPV) and high negative predictive values (NPV).
Authors: Mirjam Christ-Crain; Daiana Jaccard-Stolz; Roland Bingisser; Mikael M Gencay; Peter R Huber; Michael Tamm; Beat Müller Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-02-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David G Kiely; Norman S Kennedy; Omar Pirzada; Sheila A Batchelor; Allan D Struthers; Brian J Lipworth Journal: Respir Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.415
Authors: Philipp Schuetz; Beat Müller; Mirjam Christ-Crain; Daiana Stolz; Michael Tamm; Lila Bouadma; Charles E Luyt; Michel Wolff; Jean Chastre; Florence Tubach; Kristina B Kristoffersen; Olaf Burkhardt; Tobias Welte; Stefan Schroeder; Vandack Nobre; Long Wei; Neera Bhatnagar; Heiner C Bucher; Matthias Briel Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-09-12
Authors: Nils G Morgenthaler; Joachim Struck; Christina Fischer-Schulz; Elke Seidel-Mueller; Wilfried Beier; Andreas Bergmann Journal: Clin Lab Date: 2002 Impact factor: 1.138
Authors: Alfons Gegenhuber; Joachim Struck; Werner Poelz; Richard Pacher; Nils G Morgenthaler; Andreas Bergmann; Meinhard Haltmayer; Thomas Mueller Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2006-03-16 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Sohail Q Khan; Russell J O'Brien; Joachim Struck; Paulene Quinn; Nils Morgenthaler; Iain Squire; Joan Davies; Andreas Bergmann; Leong L Ng Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Saskia F van Vugt; Berna D L Broekhuizen; Christine Lammens; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Pim A de Jong; Samuel Coenen; Margareta Ieven; Chris C Butler; Herman Goossens; Paul Little; Theo J M Verheij Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-04-30
Authors: Sara Bobillo-Perez; Iolanda Jordan; Patricia Corniero; Monica Balaguer; Anna Sole-Ribalta; Maria Esther Esteban; Elisabeth Esteban; Francisco Jose Cambra Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 3.240