BACKGROUND: The impact of renal function on the prognostic value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) remains unclear in coronary artery disease (CAD). This study sought to investigate the value of using NT-proBNP level to predict prognoses of CAD patients with different estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted from a single registered database. 2087 consecutive patients with CAD confirmed by coronary angiography were enrolled. The primary endpoint was allcause mortality. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 26.4 ± 11.9 months and death events occurred in 197 cases. The NT-proBNP levels increased with the deterioration of renal function, as well as the optimal cutoff values based on eGFR stratification to predict endpoint outcome (179.4 pg/mL, 1443.0 pg/mL, 3478.0 pg/mL, for eGFR ≥ 90, 60-90 and < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). Compared with the routine cut-off value or overall optimal one, stratified optimal ones had superior predictive ability for endpoint in each eGFR group (all with the highest Youden's J statistics). And the prognostic value became weaker as eGFR level decreased (eGFR ≥ 90 vs. 60-90 vs. < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, odds ratio [OR] 7.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-33.9 vs. OR 4.8; 95% CI 2.7-8.5 vs. OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.5-6.2). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that NT-proBNP exhibits different predictive values for prognosis for CAD patients with different levels of renal function. Among the assessed values, the NT-proBNP cut-off value determined using renal function improve the accuracy of the prognosis prediction of CAD. Moreover, lower eGFR is associated with a higher NT-proBNP cut-off value for prognostic prediction.
BACKGROUND: The impact of renal function on the prognostic value of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) remains unclear in coronary artery disease (CAD). This study sought to investigate the value of using NT-proBNP level to predict prognoses of CAD patients with different estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted from a single registered database. 2087 consecutive patients with CAD confirmed by coronary angiography were enrolled. The primary endpoint was allcause mortality. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 26.4 ± 11.9 months and death events occurred in 197 cases. The NT-proBNP levels increased with the deterioration of renal function, as well as the optimal cutoff values based on eGFR stratification to predict endpoint outcome (179.4 pg/mL, 1443.0 pg/mL, 3478.0 pg/mL, for eGFR ≥ 90, 60-90 and < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). Compared with the routine cut-off value or overall optimal one, stratified optimal ones had superior predictive ability for endpoint in each eGFR group (all with the highest Youden's J statistics). And the prognostic value became weaker as eGFR level decreased (eGFR ≥ 90 vs. 60-90 vs. < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2, odds ratio [OR] 7.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-33.9 vs. OR 4.8; 95% CI 2.7-8.5 vs. OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.5-6.2). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that NT-proBNP exhibits different predictive values for prognosis for CAD patients with different levels of renal function. Among the assessed values, the NT-proBNP cut-off value determined using renal function improve the accuracy of the prognosis prediction of CAD. Moreover, lower eGFR is associated with a higher NT-proBNP cut-off value for prognostic prediction.
Authors: Suetonia C Palmer; Timothy G Yandle; Christopher M Frampton; Richard W Troughton; M Gary Nicholls; A Mark Richards Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-04-23 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ezra A Amsterdam; Nanette K Wenger; Ralph G Brindis; Donald E Casey; Theodore G Ganiats; David R Holmes; Allan S Jaffe; Hani Jneid; Rosemary F Kelly; Michael C Kontos; Glenn N Levine; Philip R Liebson; Debabrata Mukherjee; Eric D Peterson; Marc S Sabatine; Richard W Smalling; Susan J Zieman Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Tom Greene; Lesley A Stevens; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Stephen Hendriksen; John W Kusek; Frederick Van Lente Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-08-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mark Richards; M Gary Nicholls; Eric A Espiner; John G Lainchbury; Richard W Troughton; John Elliott; Christopher M Frampton; Ian G Crozier; Timothy G Yandle; Robert Doughty; Stephen MacMahon; Norman Sharpe Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mark Y Chan; Megan L Neely; Matthew T Roe; Shaun G Goodman; David Erlinge; Jan H Cornel; Kenneth J Winters; Joseph A Jakubowski; Chunmei Zhou; Keith A A Fox; Paul W Armstrong; Harvey D White; Dorairaj Prabhakaran; E Magnus Ohman; Kurt Huber Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Piotr Ponikowski; Adriaan A Voors; Stefan D Anker; Héctor Bueno; John G F Cleland; Andrew J S Coats; Volkmar Falk; José Ramón González-Juanatey; Veli-Pekka Harjola; Ewa A Jankowska; Mariell Jessup; Cecilia Linde; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; John T Parissis; Burkert Pieske; Jillian P Riley; Giuseppe M C Rosano; Luis M Ruilope; Frank Ruschitzka; Frans H Rutten; Peter van der Meer Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: João Pedro Ferreira; Nicolas Girerd; Pierpaolo Pellicori; Kevin Duarte; Sophie Girerd; Marc A Pfeffer; John J V McMurray; Bertram Pitt; Kenneth Dickstein; Lotte Jacobs; Jan A Staessen; Javed Butler; Roberto Latini; Serge Masson; Alexandre Mebazaa; Hans Peter Brunner-La Rocca; Christian Delles; Stephane Heymans; Naveed Sattar; J Wouter Jukema; John G Cleland; Faiez Zannad; Patrick Rossignol Journal: BMC Med Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 8.775