4.8 Article

Utility of B-natriuretic peptide in detecting diastolic dysfunction - Comparison with Doppler velocity recordings

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 105, 期 5, 页码 595-601

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hc0502.103010

关键词

echocardiography; peptides; diastole

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Although Doppler echocardiography has been used to identify abnormal left ventricular (LV) diastolic filling dynamics, inherent limitations suggest the need for additional measures of diastolic dysfunction. Because data suggest that B-natriuretic peptide (BNP) partially reflects ventricular pressure, we hypothesized that BNP levels could predict diastolic abnormalities in patients with normal systolic function. Methods and Results-We studied 294 patients referred for echocardiography to evaluate ventricular function. Patients with abnormal systolic function were excluded. Cardiologists making the assessment of LV function were blinded to BNP levels. Patients were classified as normal, impaired relaxation, pseudonormal, and restrictivelike filling patterns. Patients diagnosed with evidence of abnormal LV diastolic function (n=119) had a mean BNP concentration of 286+/-31 pg/mL; those in the normal LV group (n=175) had a mean BNP concentration of 33+/-3 pg/mL. Patients with restrictivelike filling patterns on echocardiography had the highest BNP levels (408 66 pg/mL), and patients with symptoms had higher BNP levels in all diastolic filling patterns. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for BNP to detect any diastolic dysfunction was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.87 to 0.95; P<0.001). A BNP value of 62 pg/mL had a sensitivity of 85%, a specificity of 83%, and an accuracy of 84% for detecting diastolic dysfunction. Conclusions-A rapid assay for BNP can reliably detect the presence of diastolic abnormalities on echocardiography. In patients with normal systolic function, elevated BNP levels and diastolic filling abnormalities might help to reinforce the diagnosis diastolic dysfunction.

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