4.4 Article

Risk stratification using a combination of cardiac troponin T and brain natriuretic peptide in patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 89, 期 6, 页码 691-695

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9149(01)02341-4

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We prospectively evaluated whether the combination of admission measurements of a marker for myocardial cell injury and a marker for left ventricular overload would effectively risk stratify patients with acutely decompensated heart failure. We measured serum concentrations of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) using a second-generation assay, as well as serum cardiac troponin I (cTnl) and plasma atrial and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentrations on admission in 98 consecutive patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure (mean age 69 years; 5 patients were in New York Heart Association functional class 11, 35 were in class I, and 58 patients were in class IV). During a mean follow-up period of 451 days, there were 37 cardiac events, including 21 cardiac deaths (14 in-hospital deaths) and 16 readmissions for worsening heart failure. In a stepwise Cox regression analysis, including these biochemical markers, age, sex, functional class, and left ventricular ejection fraction, cTnT, and BNP were found to be significantly independent predictors of both cardiac death (p < 0.05) and cardiac events (p < 0.01). A cTnT > 0.033 mug/L and/or a BNP > 440 pg/ml on admission was correlated with an incremental increase in in-hospital cardiac mortality, overall cardiac mortality, and cardiac event rate. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that this combination could reliably stratify the patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups for cardiac events. Measuring the combination of admission concentrations of cTnT and BNP may be a highly effective means of risk stratification of patients hospitalized for worsening chronic heart failure. (C) 2002 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.

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