4.5 Article

Echocardiography and brain natriuretic peptide as prognostic indicators in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis

Journal

RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume 103, Issue 2, Pages 180-186

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2008.11.012

Keywords

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; Echocardiography; Brain natriuretic peptide; Prognostic factor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Backgrounds: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is associated with poor prognosis. Recently echocardiography and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) have been used as non-invasive markers for PH suggesting that they may also be used as markers for survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of echocardiography and BNP by analyzing their association with survival. Methods: Retrospective review of 131 patients with IPF who underwent both echocardiography and BNP measurement at a tertiary referral center. Results: Mean follow-up period was 10.1 months. Using systolic pulmonary arterial pressure of 40 mmHg as a threshold for PH, patients with PH had poor survival (1-year mortality rate: 61.2%, mean survival: 10.8 months) than those without PH (19.9%, 23.7 months; p < 0.001). The prognosis of the subjects with increased BNP levels was poorer than those with normal BNP Levels (1-year mortality rate: 70.5% vs. 23.7%, mean survival: 11.0 months vs. 22.5 months; p < 0.001) and on multivariate analysis, only BNP Level was an independent predictor of prognosis. On serial evaluation, the survival of patients with newly developed PH and/or elevated BNP levels was similar to that of patients with PH at the initial measurement, suggesting that development of PH is indicative of poor prognosis regardless of the timing of the test. Conclusions: Although both BNP level and PH by echocardiography are clinically useful noninvasive and easily repeatable markers of prognosis, BNP level seems to be better. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available