| Literature DB >> 31320942 |
Renata Rajtar-Salwa1, Adam Gębka1, Artur Dziewierz1,2, Paweł Petkow Dimitrow1,2.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare NT-proBNP using the absolute values and NT-proBNP/ULN values that were standardized by age and gender between three subgroups: those without ischemia (negative hs-troponin I and no anginal pain (hsTnI-/AP-)), those with painless ischemia (hsTnI+/AP-), and those with painful ischemia (hsTnI+/AP+). Additionally, echocardiographic parameters were compared in these three subgroups. The absolute value of NT-proBNP was significantly higher in the painful ischemia subgroup (hsTnI-/AP- vs. hsTnI+/AP- vs. hsTnI+/AP+: 502 (174-833) vs. 969 (363-1346) vs. 2053 (323-3283) pg/ml; p = 0.018 for the whole-model analysis). The standardized value of NT-proBNP/ULN was gradually increased (hsTnI-/AP- vs. hsTnI+/AP- vs. hsTnI+/AP+: 3.61 + 0.63 vs. 6.90 + 1.31 vs. 9.35 + 1.87; p = 0.001 for the whole-model analysis). In the comparison between subgroups (hsTnI-/AP- vs. hsTnI+/AP- vs. hsTnI+/AP+), two echocardiographic parameters increased significantly. The left ventricular maximum wall thickness (LVMWT) at diastole was 1.99 ± 0.08 cm vs. 2.28 ± 0.13 cm vs. 2.49 ± 0.15 cm (p = 0.004 for the whole-model analysis). The maximal gradient of the provoked left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient increased significantly in only the painful-ischemia subgroup (11 (7-30) mmHg vs. 12 (9.35-31.5) mmHg vs. 100 (43-120) mmHg). In conclusion, both painless ischemia and painful ischemia are associated with a gradual, significant increase in NT-proBNP/ULN in comparison to the double-negative hsTnI/AP subgroup. In contrast, NT-proBNP is significantly higher in only the subgroup with painful ischemia.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31320942 PMCID: PMC6610740 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6487152
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
TNHS test repeatability and intralaboratory precision.
| High-sensitivity troponin | Assay output requirements | |
|---|---|---|
| Repeatability (within the same series) (CV (%)) | Intralaboratory precision (total) (CV (%)) | |
| 9-20 | ≤10% | ≤12% |
| >20 | ≤10% | ≤10% |
Precision was assessed in accordance with the EP05-A3 protocol of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): “Evaluation of Precision of Quantitative Measurement Procedures; Approved Guidelines—Third Edition” (CLSI Document EP05-A3).
NT-proBNP test repeatability and intralaboratory precision.
| NT-proBNP | Assay output requirements | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| pg/ml | pmol/l | Repeatability (within the same series) (CV (%)) | Intralaboratory precision (total) (CV (%)) |
| 100-500 | 11.8–59.0 | ≤5% | ≤8% |
| >500 | >59,0 | ≤7% | ≤10% |
Precision was assessed in accordance with the EP05-A3 protocol of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI): “Evaluation of Precision of Quantitative Measurement Procedures; Approved Guidelines—Third Edition” (CLSI Document EP05-A3).
Figure 1Comparison of NT-proBNP between subgroup 0 (hsTnI-/AP-), subgroup 1 (hsTnI+/AP-), and subgroup 2 (hsTnI+/AP+); p = 0.018 for the whole model. For inter-subgroup comparison: ∗subgroup 0 vs. 1: p = 1.000; ∗∗subgroup 1 vs. 2: p = 0.177; ∗∗∗subgroup 0 vs. 2: p = 0.004.
Figure 2Comparison of NT-proBNP standardized according to age and sex between subgroup 0 (hsTnI-/AP-), subgroup 1 (hsTnI+/AP-), and subgroup 2 (hsTnI+/AP+). p = 0.001 for the whole model. Inter-subgroup comparison: ∗subgroup 0 vs. 1: p = 0.049; ∗∗subgroup 1 vs. 2: p = 0.208; ∗∗∗subgroup 0 vs. 2: p < 0.001.
Figure 3Significant increase (p = 0.004) of LVMWT in the whole model. Inter-subgroup comparison: ∗subgroup 0 vs.1: p = 0.083; ∗∗subgroup 1 vs. 2: p = 0.256; ∗∗∗subgroup 0 vs. 2: p = 0.001.
Figure 4Significant increase (p < 0.001 for the whole model) of provocable LVOT gradient. Inter-subgroup comparison: ∗subgroup 0 vs. 1: p = 1.000; ∗∗subgroup 1 vs. 2: p < 0.001; ∗∗∗subgroup 0 vs. 2: p = 0.007.
Figure 5There was a nonsignificant increase in LAD (p = 0.051 for the whole model). ∗Subgroup 0 vs. 1: p = 0.226; ∗∗subgroup 1 vs. 2: p = 0.379; ∗∗∗subgroup 0 vs. 2: p = 0.017.
Correlations between NT-proBNP(/ULN) and echocardiographic parameters.
| NT-proBNP | NT-proBNP/ULN | |
|---|---|---|
| LVMWT |
|
|
| LVOTG max |
|
|
| LAD |
|
|
∗Nonsignificant; remaining correlations were significant; p < 0.05.
Results of linear regression analysis.
| Independent variable | Coefficient | Standard error | Standardized coefficient |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resting LVOT gradient | 19.76 | 5.29 | 0.41 | <0.001 |
| LAD | 314.44 | 123.30 | 0.26 | 0.013 |
| Angina | 658.35 | 297.13 | 0.25 | 0.031 |
| Mean age | 37 ± 6 years |
|---|---|
| Males/females | 33/31 |
| The ICD implantation | 8 patients |
| EF % | 59 ± 8% |
| hsTnI value | 73.74 ± 232.9 |
| Medications | Patients |
| Beta-blockers | 43 |
| Verapamil | 17 |
| Diuretics | 3 |
| ACE inhibitors | 4 |
| Past history of AP in years | 4.1 + 1.2 years |
| Total ( | Subgroup 0 ( | Subgroup 1 ( | Subgroup 2 ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline characteristics of subgroups of patients with HCM | |||||
| NYHA | Class I ( | 12 (19%) | 9 (24%) | 3 (25%) | 0∗,∗∗ |
| Class II ( | 33 (51%) | 20 (52%) | 6 (50%) | 7 (50%) | |
| Class III ( | 19 (30%) | 9 (24%) | 3 (25%) | 7 (50%)∗ | |
| CCS | Class I ( | 24 (38%) | 18 (47%) | 5 (42%) | 1 (7%)∗,∗∗ |
| Class II ( | 29 (45%) | 16 (42%) | 5 (42%) | 8 (57%) | |
| Class III ( | 11 (17%) | 4 (11%) | 2 (8%) | 5 (36%)∗ | |
| Syncope ( | 25 (39%) | 13 (34%) | 5 (42%) | 7 (50%) | |
| Sudden death in family history ( | 23 (36%) | 14 (37%) | 4 (33%) | 5 (36%) | |
| All patients had Holter | |||||
| NSVT in Holter ( | 26 (41%) | 15 (39%) | 5 (42%) | 6 (43%) | |
| LV maximal wall thickness (LVMWT) at diastole (cm) | 2.23 ± 0.57 | Detailed calculation in | |||
| Resting LVOT gradient, ≥30 mmHg ( | 14 (22%) | 6 (16%) | 3 (25%) | 5 (36%) | |
| Provocable LVOT gradient, ≥30 mmHg ( | 14 (22%) | 5 (13%) | 3 (25%) | 6 (43%)∗ | |
| Left atrial diameter (cm) | 4.78 ± 0.64 | Detailed calculation in | |||
Abbreviations: CCS: Canadian Cardiovascular Society; LVOT: left ventricular outflow tract; LV: left ventricular; NSVT: nonsustained ventricular tachycardia; NYHA: New York Heart Association. ∗p < 0.05 subgroup 0 vs. 2; ∗∗p < 0.05 subgroup 1 vs. 2.