4.2 Article

The optimal time of B-type natriuretic peptide sampling associated with post-myocardial infarction remodelling after primary percutaneous coronary intervention

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR JOURNAL OF AFRICA
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 165-170

出版社

CLINICS CARDIVE PUBL PTY LTD
DOI: 10.5830/CVJA-2013-024

关键词

B-type natriuretic peptide; remodelling; myocardial infarction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To find the optimal time to evaluate plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), which is related to post-myocardial infarction remodelling (PMIR), we measured serial plasma BNP levels according to time protocols after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background: It has been established that plasma BNP levels can predict the development of PMIR in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the time of plasma BNP sampling associated with PMIR is still controversial. Methods: We analysed 42 patients who were diagnosed as PMIR on six-month follow-up echocardiography among 131 patients with STEMI. We then compared clinical variables including plasma BNP between the remodelling group and the non-remodelling group. The plasma BNP level was obtained on hospital admission (acute phase), at two to five days (early phase), three to four weeks (late phase) and at the six-month follow up (long term). Results: Early-phase and long-term BNP levels were higher in the remodelling group. The serial plasma BNP levels, according to study protocols, showed a biphasic pattern of elevation. In multiple logistic regression analyses, early-phase BNP [odds ratio (OR): 1.013, p < 0.01] and acute-phase BNP levels (OR: 1.007, p = 0.02) were independent predictors of PMIR. However, early-phase BNP level was statistically a more powerful predictor of PMIR during follow up. Conclusion: Consecutive BNP levels after primary PCI showed a biphasic peak elevation during follow up. Early-phase plasma BNP level was an independent predictor of PMIR in patients with STEMI.

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

4.2
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