4.5 Article

How obesity affects the cut-points for B-type natriuretic peptide in the diagnosis of acute heart failure: Results from the Breathing Not Properly Multinational Study

Journal

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
Volume 151, Issue 5, Pages 999-1005

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2005.10.011

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is valuable in diagnosing heart failure (HF), but its utility in obese patients is unknown. Studies have suggested a cut-point of BNP >= 100 pg/mL for the diagnosis of HF; however, there is an inverse relation between BNP levels and body mass index. We evaluated differential cut-points for BNP in diagnosing acute HF across body mass index levels to determine whether alternative cut-points can improve diagnosis. Methods The Breathing Not Properly Multinational Study was a 7-center, prospective study of 1586 patients who presented to the Emergency Department with acute dyspnea. B-type natriuretic peptide was measured on arrival. Height and weight data were available for 1368 participants. The clinical diagnosis of HF was adjudicated by 2 independent cardiologists who were blinded to BNP results. Results Heart failure was the final diagnosis in 46.1%. Mean BNP levels (pg/mL) in lean, overweight/obese, and severely/morbidly obese patients were 643, 462, and 247 for patients with acute HF, and 52, 35, and 25 in those without HF, respectively (P < .05 for all comparisons except 35 vs 25). B-type natriuretic peptide cut-points to maintain 90% sensitivity for a HF diagnosis were 170 pg/mL for lean subjects, 110 pg/mL for overweight/obese subjects, and 54 pg/mL in severely/morbidly obese patients. Conclusions Body mass index influences the selection of cut-points for BNP in diagnosing acute HF. A lower cut-point (BNP >= 54 pg/mL) should be used in severely obese patients to preserve sensitivity. A higher cut-point in lean patients (BNP >= 170 pg/mL) could be used to increase specificity.

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