4.8 Article

Impact of body mass and body composition on circulating levels of natriuretic peptides - Results from the Dallas heart study

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 112, 期 14, 页码 2163-2168

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.555573

关键词

natriuretic peptides; obesity; hormones; physiology

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [M01-RR00633] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-The association between higher body mass index (BMI) and lower B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level isthought to be mediated by expression of the natriuretic peptide clearance receptor (NPR-C) in adipose tissue. To explore this association, we tested 2 hypotheses: ( 1) that N-terminal (NT)-proBNP, which is not believed to bind NPR-C, would not be associated with BMI and (2) that lower BNP would be more closely associated with fat mass than with lean mass. Methods and Results-Measurements of BNP, NT-proBNP, and body composition by direct dual energy x-ray absorptiometry ( DEXA) were performed in 2707 subjects from the Dallas Heart Study. The associations between obesity and low BNP (<4 ng/L) or low NT-proBNP ( lowest sex-specific quartile) were evaluated with multivariable logistic regression models stratified by sex and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, hypertension, left ventricular mass, and end-diastolic volume. Higher BMI was independently associated with lower BNP and NT-proBNP ( all P < 0.001). When BMI was replaced with both DEXA-derived lean and fat mass, greater lean mass, but not fat mass, was associated with low BNP and NT-proBNP levels. Conclusions-In a large, population-based cohort, we confirm the previously described association between higher BMI and lower BNP and demonstrate a similar inverse association between BMI and NT-proBNP. Interestingly, both BNP and NT-proBNP are more closely associated with lean mass than with fat mass. These findings do not support the hypothesis that the lower BNP levels seen in obesity are driven by enhanced BNP clearance mediated via NPR-C.

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

4.8
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