These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of midregional pro-atrial and B-type natriuretic peptides in chronic heart failure: influencing factors, detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and prediction of death.
    Author: Moertl D, Berger R, Struck J, Gleiss A, Hammer A, Morgenthaler NG, Bergmann A, Huelsmann M, Pacher R.
    Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol; 2009 May 12; 53(19):1783-90. PubMed ID: 19422985.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Midregional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) was assessed for the importance of influencing factors, the ability to detect left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and the prognostic power compared with B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in chronic heart failure (HF). BACKGROUND: MR-proANP is a biologically stable natriuretic peptide measured by a recently developed assay, with potential advantages over conventional natriuretic peptides such as BNP and NT-proBNP. METHODS: We measured MR-proANP, BNP, and NT-proBNP in 797 patients with chronic HF. RESULTS: All 3 natriuretic peptides were independently influenced by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and the presence of ankle edema. Area under receiver-operator characteristic curves for detection of an LVEF <40% were similar between MR-proANP (0.799 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.753 to 0.844]), BNP (0.803 [95% CI: 0.757 to 0.849]), and NT-proBNP (0.730 [95% CI: 0.681 to 0.778]). During a median observation time of 68 months, 492 (62%) patients died. In multiple Cox regression analysis each natriuretic peptide was the strongest prognostic parameter among various clinical variables. Proportion of explained variation showed that NT-proANP (4.36%) was a significantly stronger predictor of death than both NT-proBNP (2.47%, p < 0.0001) and BNP (2.42%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite similarities in influencing factors and detection of reduced LVEF, MR-proANP outperformed BNP and NT-proBNP in the prediction of death. A new assay technology and the high biological stability of MR-proANP are potential explanations for these findings.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]