4.4 Article

Troponin, B-type natriuretic peptides and outcomes in severe heart failure: Differences between ischemic and dilated cardiomyopathies

期刊

CLINICAL CARDIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 5, 页码 245-250

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS INC
DOI: 10.1002/clc.20075

关键词

cardiomyopathy; troponin; NT-proBNP; BNP; heart failure; outcomes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Ischemic (ISCM) and idiopathic dilated (IDCM) cardiomyopathies have different responses to therapy and outcomes. Both may demonstrate elevations in troponin and B-type natriuretic peptides, but biomarker levels have not been reported to differ as a function of the etiology of heart failure (HF). Accordingly, we compared these biomarkers in patients with chronic HF. Hypothesis: Biomarker levels of troponin T, troponin 1, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), and N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are quantitatively different between ischemic and idiopathic dilated etiologies of chronic HF. Methods: Forty patients (27 male, 68 +/- 2 years; LVEF 25 +/- 1%; NYHA Class III-IV) admitted to hospital for acute HF were studied. Biomarkers were drawn at admission prior to treatment intervention. Results: Of the 40 patients, 27 had ISCM and 13 IDCM. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar with the exception of GFR. cTnT, cTnI, and BNP levels were higher in ISCM patients (cTnT: 0.373 +/- 0.145 vs. 0.064 +/- 0.016 ng/mL, p < 0.05; cTnI: 2.02 +/- 0.76 vs. 0.21 +/- 0.11 ng/mL, p < 0.05; BNP: 776 +/- 91 vs. 532 +/- 85 pg/mL, p < 0.05). Cardiovascular mortality during follow up (10 +/- 1 months) was 48% in patients with ISCM and 23% with IDCM (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Patients with acutely decompensated chronic HF have elevations in troponin and BNP. These elevations, as well as mortality are significantly higher in patients with ISCM compared to IDCM. The differential levels in biomarkers may be due to differences in disease pathogenesis, and fit with the adverse prognosis in these 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

4.4
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