4.1 Article

Neuroendocrine testing in community patients with heart disease: plasma N-terminal proatrial natriuretic peptide predicts morbidity and mortality stronger than catecholamines and heart rate variability

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/00365510410002878

关键词

catecholamines; congestive heart failure; heart rate variability; mortality; natriuretic peptide; 24-h monitoring of blood pressure; 24-h monitoring of electrocardiogram

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with heart disease are at risk of developing congestive heart failure (CHF). Neurohormonal activation may make an important contribution. Aim: In stable heart patients from primary care, to examine neuroendocrine markers of cardiac performance for the association to cardiac dysfunction, morbidity and mortality. Methods: Plasma N-terminal atrial natriuretic peptide (N-ANP), catecholamines, 24-h ECG and blood pressure, serum urea and creatinine, echocardiography, chest X-ray and physical examination were performed. Death was recorded during 5 to 7 years of follow-up. Results: The study included 56 patients. Mean age was 71 years, 54% were men, 43% had clinical signs of CHF, 39+52+9% were in NYHA I+II+III, 34% had echocardiographic cardiac dysfunction, and 18 died during follow-up. N-ANP was related to all subtypes of cardiac dysfunction (p<0.05). Catecholamines and premature ventricular captures ( PVC) were related to valvular and systolic dysfunction, but heart rate variability and dipping blood pressure were not (p>0.05). On multivariate analyses only, N-ANP and PVC were associated with clinical signs of CHF, echocardiographic cardiac dysfunction, and mortality (p<0.05). Conclusions: Plasma N-ANP was stronger than catecholamines and variables of 24-h monitoring ( blood pressure and electrocardiogram) in predicting morbidity and mortality, thereby supporting the use of cardiac natriuretic peptides (i.e. N-ANP, BNP, or N-BNP) as the most valuable biomarker in community patients at risk of CHF.

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

4.1
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