4.5 Article

NT-proBNP in the differential diagnosis of acute dyspnea in the emergency department

Journal

CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY
Volume 38, Issue 11, Pages 1041-1044

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2005.07.010

Keywords

acute severe dyspnea; emergency department; congestive heart failure; N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide; brain natriuretic peptide

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to verify the usefulness of NT-proBNP in the differential diagnosis of dyspnea in a population of patients presenting in the ER with breathlessness. Design and methods: In samples from 122 patients presenting in the ER with acute-severe dyspnea and from 25 subjects enrolled as a comparison group (NORM), NT-proBNP levels were measured. Patients have been classified on the basis of discharge diagnosis: pulmonary disease (PD, n = 23), pulmonary concomitant to cardiac disease (MIXED, n = 17), pulmonary embolism (EMB, n = 8), cardiac disease (CARD, n = 56), acute myocardial infarction (AMI, n = 11) and other disease (OTHER, n = 7). Results: A significant difference in NT-proBNP values (P <= 0.05) was found in CARD vs. PD as well as vs. NORM and OTHER groups. 1760 ng/L was the best cut-off value calculated from ROC analysis (AUC +/- SE 0.815 +/- 0.041). Comparing NT-proBNP values and ER diagnosis, a disagreement in 24 patients was observed. Using the discharge diagnosis as the gold standard, four cases (17%) were found to be FP and 11 cases (46%) were FN according to ER diagnosis, while 2 patients showed false positive and 7 false negative NT-proBNP values. Conclusions: NT-proBNP measurement represents a useful biochemical tool helping the ER physician in the rapid and reliable recognition of cardiac involvement in patients presenting in the ER with acute-severe dyspnea. (C) 2005 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. 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