Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2019
Mid-regional proatrial natriuretic peptide for predicting prognosis in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bégué Céline, Mörner Stellan, Brito Dulce, Hengstenberg Christian, Cleland John G F, Arbustini Eloisa, Galve Enrique, Wichter Thomas, Richter Anette, Golmard Jean-Louis, Bernard Maguy, Dubourg Olivier, Komajda Michel, Charron Philippe, Isnard Richard
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) predicts mortality and the development of heart failure in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Mid-regional proatrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) is a stable by-product of production of atrial natriuretic peptide. We sought to compare the prognostic value of MR-proANP and NT-proBNP in HCM.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a cohort of patients with HCM from different European centres and followed them. All patients had clinical, ECG and echocardiographic evaluation and measurement of MR-proANP and NT-proBNP at inclusion.
RESULTS: Of 357 patients enrolled, the median age was 52 (IQR: 36-65) years. MR-proANP and NT-proBNP were both independently associated with age, weight, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), wall thickness and left atrial dimension. During a median follow-up of 23 months, 32 patients had a primary end point defined as death (n=6), heart transplantation (n=8), left ventricular assist device implantation (n=1) or heart failure hospitalisation (n=17). Both NT-proBNP and MR-proANP (p<10-4) were strongly associated with the primary endpoint, and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both peptides were not significantly different. However, in a multiple stepwise regression analysis, the best model for predicting outcome was NYHA 1-2 vs 3-4 (HR=0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.77, p<0.01), LVEF (HR=0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98, p=0.0005) and MR-proANP (HR=3.77, 95% CI 2.01 to 7.08, p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: MR-proANP emerges as a valuable biomarker for the prediction of death and heart failure related events in patients with HCM.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled a cohort of patients with HCM from different European centres and followed them. All patients had clinical, ECG and echocardiographic evaluation and measurement of MR-proANP and NT-proBNP at inclusion.
RESULTS: Of 357 patients enrolled, the median age was 52 (IQR: 36-65) years. MR-proANP and NT-proBNP were both independently associated with age, weight, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), wall thickness and left atrial dimension. During a median follow-up of 23 months, 32 patients had a primary end point defined as death (n=6), heart transplantation (n=8), left ventricular assist device implantation (n=1) or heart failure hospitalisation (n=17). Both NT-proBNP and MR-proANP (p<10-4) were strongly associated with the primary endpoint, and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both peptides were not significantly different. However, in a multiple stepwise regression analysis, the best model for predicting outcome was NYHA 1-2 vs 3-4 (HR=0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.77, p<0.01), LVEF (HR=0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98, p=0.0005) and MR-proANP (HR=3.77, 95% CI 2.01 to 7.08, p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: MR-proANP emerges as a valuable biomarker for the prediction of death and heart failure related events in patients with HCM.