3.8 Article

NT pro BNP: A Factor to Predict the Outcome of Head Trauma Patients

期刊

TRAUMA MONTHLY
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 479-484

出版社

NATL CENTER TRAUMA RESEARCH
DOI: 10.30491/tm.2022.215817.1059

关键词

Glasgow Coma Score; pro-brain natriuretic peptide; Mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the significant value of assessing NT-pro BNP serum levels in predicting the mortality rate of patients with head trauma.
Background: Surveying serum markers can be valuable in predicting the outcome of patients with head trauma. The current study examined the diagnostic value of the serum level of Brain Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) to determine the hospital outcome of patients with head trauma. Methods: This descriptive-analytical study was conducted on 40 patients with pure head trauma who had indications for brain CT scans and required hospitalization from July 2017 to May 2019 at Trauma Medical-Educational Center. The variables were age, gender, initial consciousness level based on Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), trauma mechanism, the time-lapse between trauma and admission to hospital, mortality, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) during discharge, GOS at one and six months after discharge, initial serum level of NT-pro BNP (N Terminal-pro BNP), and results of brain CT scan. Results: Concerning the reports of brain CT scans, from 40 patients, 26 patients had normal brain CT scans, and 14 patients had abnormal brain CT scans. Mean +/- SD value of NT-pro BNP for normal group was 407.7 +/- 190.25 pg/ml and for abnormal group was 631.43 +/- 219.25 pg/ml (p = 0.009). Only five patients with abnormal CT scans died during the study. In predicting mortality of patients, the initial serum level of NT-pro BNP was 693 pg/ml with 80%sensitivity and 74% specificity. Conclusion: assessing of the serum values of NT-pro BNP can help predict the mortality rate of patients with head trauma. Higher values of NT-pro BNP during hospitalization is a good indicator of a low survival rate in patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据