| Literature DB >> 35169397 |
Shaolei Chen1, Yanli Zhou1, Xia Wu1, Shaojun Shi1, Haiyan Wu1, Peng Li1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the significance of echocardiography combined with N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro BNP) levels in the evaluation and prognosis of diastolic heart failure (DHF).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35169397 PMCID: PMC8841100 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2102496
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Serum NT-pro BNP levels in patients. (a) Serum NT-pro BNP levels are elevated in patients with DHF. (b) Increased serum NT-pro BNP level in patients with DHF in the P-MACE group. ∗∗∗P < 0.001.
Figure 2Echocardiography of patients with DHF.
Echocardiographic measures were compared between the control group and each NYHA class group of DHF.
| Characteristics | Control ( | DHF ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total ( | NYHA II ( | NYHA III ( | NYHA IV ( | ||
| LVEDD (mm) | 48.38 ± 2.32 | 42.77 ± 3.53∗ | 45.22 ± 2.96∗ | 42.09 ± 3.19∗# | 40.92 ± 3.17∗#& |
| LVD (mm) | 45.82 ± 0.76 | 51.72 ± 2.78∗ | 50.78 ± 1.73∗ | 51.64 ± 2.29∗# | 53.12 ± 4.01∗#& |
| LAD (mm) | 34.18 ± 3.15 | 31.69 ± 3.10∗ | 32.33 ± 3.18∗ | 31.45 ± 2.86∗ | 31.33 ± 3.38∗ |
| IVS (mm) | 8.96 ± 1.22 | 10.78 ± 0.87∗ | 10.03 ± 0.60∗ | 10.94 ± 0.74∗# | 11.45 ± 0.70∗#& |
| LVEF (%) | 60.98 ± 2.82 | 53.99 ± 5.42∗ | 56.64 ± 5.30∗ | 54.59 ± 4.67∗# | 49.34 ± 3.96∗#& |
| Vp (cm/s) | 0.54 ± 0.02 | 0.490 ± 0.04∗ | 0.50 ± 0.04∗ | 0.49 ± 0.03∗ | 0.45 ± 0.04∗#& |
|
| 6.16 ± 0.58 | 11.29 ± 1.54∗ | 9.49 ± 0.92∗ | 11.84 ± 0.86∗# | 12.52 ± 1.12∗#& |
Data were mean ± SD. ∗P < 0.05, compared with control; #P < 0.05, compared with NYHA II; &P < 0.05, compared with NYHA III. DHF: diastolic heart failure; NYHA: New York Heart Association; LVEDD: left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LVD: left ventricular diameter; LAD: left atrial diameter; IVS: interventricular septum thickness; LVEF: left ventricular ejection fraction; Vp: flow propagation velocity; E/Ea: peak early diastolic blood flow velocity/peak early diastolic velocity of mitral annulus.
Comparison of echocardiographic indicators in patients with DHF with cardiovascular events.
| Characteristics | N-MACE ( | P-MACE ( |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| LVEDD (mm) | 44.56 ± 3.02 | 41.11 ± 3.15 | <0.001 |
| LVD (mm) | 51.56 ± 2.27 | 51.87 ± 3.18 | 0.47 |
| LAD (mm) | 31.89 ± 3.26 | 31.49 ± 2.94 | 0.41 |
| IVS (mm) | 10.53 ± 0.85 | 11.02 ± 0.83 | <0.001 |
| LVEF (%) | 56.62 ± 4.71 | 51.55 ± 4.89 | <0.001 |
| Vp (cm/s) | 0.49 ± 0.04 | 0.48 ± 0.05 | 0.02 |
|
| 10.49 ± 1.31 | 12.02 ± 1.36 | <0.001 |
Data were mean ± SD.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of NYHA II and NYHA III.
| Variables | Regression coefficient | Standard error |
| Wald |
| OR value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NT-pro BNP | 0.003 | 0.001 | 1.87 | 3.498 | 0.061 | 1.003 | 1.000~1.005 |
| LVEF | 0.118 | 0.09 | 1.305 | 1.702 | 0.192 | 1.125 | 0.943~1.342 |
| Vp | 15.879 | 12.83 | 1.238 | 1.532 | 0.216 | 7.87^106 | 0.000~6.56×1017 |
|
| 3.197 | 0.777 | 4.114 | 16.923 | ≤0.001 | 24.45 | 5.332~112.125 |
| LVD | 0.25 | 0.224 | 1.117 | 1.248 | 0.264 | 1.284 | 0.828~1.993 |
| IVS | 1.319 | 0.695 | 1.899 | 3.607 | 0.058 | 3.74 | 0.959~14.592 |
| LVEDD | -0.2 | 0.141 | -1.421 | 2.02 | 0.155 | 0.819 | 0.621~1.079 |
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of NYHA III and NYHA IV.
| Variables | Regression coefficient | Standard error |
| Wald |
| OR value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NT-pro BNP | 0.009 | 0.002 | 4.269 | 18.225 | ≤0.001 | 1.009 | 1.005~ 1.014 |
| LVEF | -0.146 | 0.117 | -1.241 | 1.541 | 0.214 | 0.864 | 0.687~ 1.088 |
| Vp | -8.283 | 15.617 | -0.53 | 0.281 | 0.596 | 0.000 | 0.000~ 4.96×109 |
|
| 2.842 | 0.837 | 3.397 | 11.541 | 0.001 | 17.153 | 3.328~ 88.407 |
| LVD | 0.303 | 0.252 | 1.201 | 1.442 | 0.23 | 1.353 | 0.826~ 2.218 |
| IVS | 2.526 | 0.877 | 2.879 | 8.291 | 0.004 | 12.505 | 2.240~ 69.800 |
| LVEDD | 0.067 | 0.177 | 0.381 | 0.146 | 0.703 | 1.07 | 0.757~ 1.512 |
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of MACE Occurrence.
| Variables | Regression coefficient | Standard error |
| Wald |
| OR value | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NT-pro BNP | 0.002 | 0.001 | 2.216 | 4.911 | 0.027 | 1.002 | 1.000~ 1.003 |
| LVEF | -0.151 | 0.048 | -3.155 | 9.955 | 0.002 | 0.86 | 0.783~ 0.944 |
| Vp | 6.631 | 5.786 | 1.146 | 1.314 | 0.252 | 758.397 | 0.009~ 6.378×107 |
|
| 0.482 | 0.204 | 2.368 | 5.609 | 0.018 | 1.619 | 1.087~ 2.413 |
| IVS | -0.382 | 0.295 | -1.293 | 1.673 | 0.196 | 0.683 | 0.383~ 1.218 |
| LVEDD | -0.214 | 0.071 | -3.01 | 9.058 | 0.003 | 0.808 | 0.703~ 0.928 |
Figure 3The role of echocardiography and NT-pro BNP in the evaluation and prognosis of patients with DHF. (a) ROC curve analysis of NYHA III diagnosis. (b) ROC curve analysis of NYHA IV diagnosis. (c) ROC curve analysis of MACE diagnosis in patients.
Analysis of the ROC curves for the NYHA III, NYHA IV, and MACE-grade diagnoses.
| AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NYHA III | |||
| NT-pro BNP | 0.751 | 0.647 | 0.804 |
| Echocardiography | 0.584 | 0.255 | 1 |
| Echocardiography combined with NT-pro BNP | 0.771 | 0.98 | 0.431 |
| NYHA IV | |||
| NT-pro BNP | 0.955 | 0.923 | 0.872 |
| Echocardiography | 0.876 | 0.718 | 0.897 |
| Echocardiography combined with NT-pro BNP | 0.985 | 1 | 0.897 |
| MACE | |||
| NT-pro BNP | 0.758 | 0.483 | 0.914 |
| Echocardiography | 0.813 | 0.77 | 0.741 |
| Echocardiography combined with NT-pro BNP | 0.904 | 0.77 | 0.901 |