4.4 Article

Left atrial volume and N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide are associated with elevated pulmonary artery pressure in patients with systemic sclerosis

期刊

CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 29, 期 9, 页码 957-964

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-010-1494-3

关键词

Left atrial volume; N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide; Pulmonary hypertension.; Systemic sclerosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Early detection of pulmonary hypertension (PH) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) is essential as it leads to substantial morbidity and mortality irrespective of its etiology. The aim of our study was to determine whether noninvasive biochemical and/or echocardiographic indices can predict the presence of PH in these patients. We prospectively studied 66 patients (mean age of 57.7 +/- 12.1 years, 63 women) with SSc without clinical manifestations of heart failure. All patients underwent standard and tissue Doppler echocardiography. Plasma N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) levels were also measured. In 24 (36%) patients, the diagnosis of PH was established by echocardiography (systolic pulmonary artery pressure value a parts per thousand yen40 mmHg). Left atrial (LA) volume, NT-proBNP, ADMA, ratio of early transmitral filling velocity to early diastolic velocity of the mitral annulus (mitral E/E (m)), and right ventricular myocardial performance index (MPI) were univariate predictors of PH. In multivariate analysis, NT-proBNP, LA volume, and right ventricular MPI were independent predictors of PH in SSc patients. LA volume and NT-proBNP may be useful noninvasive markers for the prediction of elevated pulmonary artery pressure in patients with SSc. These parameters should be considered when assessing this population for risk stratification and for identification of patients demanding further investigation and institution of specific therapy for the disease at the time when it is most likely to be effective.

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