4.8 Article

N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and long-term mortality in acute coronary syndromes

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 106, 期 23, 页码 2913-2918

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000041661.63285.AE

关键词

angina; myocardial infarction; natriuretic peptides; prognosis; risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is a predictor of short- and medium-term prognosis across the spectrum of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The N-terminal fragment of the BNP prohormone, N-BNP, may be an even stronger prognostic marker. We assessed the relation between subacute plasma N-BNP levels and long-term, all-cause mortality in a large, contemporary cohort of patients with ACS. Methods and Results-Blood samples for N-BNP determination were obtained in the subacute phase in 204 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI): 220 with non-ST segment elevation MI and 185 with unstable angina in the subacute phase. After a median follow-up of 51 months, 86 patients (14%) had died. Median N-BNP levels were significantly lower in long-term survivors than in patients dying (442 versus 1306 pmol/L; P < 0.0001). The unadjusted risk ratio of patients with supramedian N-BNP levels was 3.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.4 to 6.5). In a multivariate Cox regression model, N-BNP (risk ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 3.9]) added prognostic information above and beyond Killip class, patient age, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Adjustment for peak troponin T levels did not markedly alter the relation between N-BNP and mortality. In patients with no evidence of clinical heart failure, N-BNP remained a significant predictor of mortality after adjustment for age and ejection fraction (risk ratio, 2.4 [95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 5.4]). Conclusions-N-BNP is a powerful indicator of long-term mortality in patients with ACS and provides prognostic information above and beyond conventional risk markers.

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