| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Savarese, Gianluigi, et al.
(författare)
-
Associations With and Prognostic and Discriminatory Role of N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide in Heart Failure With Preserved Versus Mid-range Versus Reduced Ejection Fraction.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Journal of Cardiac Failure. - : Elsevier BV. - 1071-9164 .- 1532-8414. ; 24:6, s. 365-374
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to characterize N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in terms of determinants of levels and of its prognostic and discriminatory role in heart failure with mid-range (HFmrEF) versus preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction.METHODS AND RESULTS: In 9847 outpatients with HFpEF (n = 1811; 18%), HFmrEF (n = 2122; 22%) and HFrEF (n = 5914; 60%) enrolled in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry, median NT-proBNP levels were 1428, 1540, and 2288 pg/mL, respectively. Many determinants of NT-proBNP differed by ejection fraction, with atrial fibrillation (AF) more important in HFmrEF and HFpEF, diabetes and hypertension in HFmrEF, and age and body mass index in HFrEF and HFmrEF, whereas renal function, New York Heart Association functional class, heart rate, and anemia were similar. Hazard ratios for death and death/HF hospitalization for NT-proBNP above the median ranged from 1.48 to 2.00 and were greatest for HFmrEF and HFpEF. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for death and death/HF hospitalization were greater in HFmrEF than in HFpEF and HFrEF and were reduced by AF in HFpEF and HFmrEF but not in HFrEF.CONCLUSIONS: In HFpEF and especially HFmrEF, NT-proBNP was more prognostic and discriminatory, but also more affected by confounders such as AF. These data support the use of NT-proBNP for eligibility, enrichment, and surrogate end points in HFpEF and HFmrEF trials, and suggest that cutoff levels for eligibility should be carefully tailored to comorbidity.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Savarese, Gianluigi, et al.
(författare)
-
Utilizing NT-proBNP for Eligibility and Enrichment in Trials in HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC. Heart failure. - : Elsevier BV. - 2213-1779 .- 2213-1787. ; 6:3, s. 246-256
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVESThe purpose of this study was to assess the association between N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and cardiovascular (CV) versus non-CV events and between NT-proBNP and potential treatment effects in heart failure (HF) with preserved, mid-range, and reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF, respectively) and clinically relevant subgroups.BACKGROUNDOptimizing patient eligibility criteria in HF trials requires biomarkers that enrich for CV but not for non-CV events and select patients most likely to respond to the tested intervention.METHODSIn the Swedish HF registry population stratified by EF category, we used Kaplan-Meier curves to estimate unadjusted CV and non-CV risks (mortality or hospitalization); Poisson regressions to calculate crude event rates of CV and non-CV events according to NT-proBNP levels; and Cox regressions to calculate the adjusted hazard ratios for HF therapies according to NT-proBNP <= or > median.RESULTSIn a cohort of 15,849 patients (23% HFpEF, 21% HFmrEF, 56% HFrEF), median NT-proBNP was 2,037, 2,192, and 3,141 pg/ml, respectively. With increasing NT-proBNP, CV event rates increased more steeply than non-CV rates (range 20 to 160 and 30 to 100 per 100 patient-years in HFpEF; 20 to 130 and 20 to 100 in HFmrEF; and 20 to 110 and 20 to 50 in HFrEF, respectively). The CV-to-non-CV ratio increased with increasing NT-proBNP in HFpEF and HFrEF, but only in the lower range in HFmrEF. The association between treatments (e.g., angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, and beta-blockers) and outcomes was consistent in NT-proBNP <= and > median.CONCLUSIONSIn HF trial design in different EF categories, NT-proBNP may be a useful tool for eligibility and enrichment for CV events, but its role in predicting a potential treatment response remains unclear.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
