CLINICAL RESEARCH: HEART FAILURE
Comparison of Midregional Pro-Atrial and B-Type Natriuretic Peptides in Chronic Heart FailureInfluencing Factors, Detection of Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction, and Prediction of Death
Deddo Moertl, MD*,*,
Rudolf Berger, MD*,
Joachim Struck, PhD ,
Andreas Gleiss, PhD ,
Alexandra Hammer, MD*,
Nils G. Morgenthaler, MD,
Andreas Bergmann, PhD,
Martin Huelsmann, MD* and
Richard Pacher, MD*
* Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Core Unit for Medical Statistics and Informatics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
B.R.A.H.M.S. AG, Department of Research, Hennigsdorf/Berlin, Germany
Manuscript received November 29, 2008;
revised manuscript received January 16, 2009,
accepted January 25, 2009.
* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Deddo Moertl, Department of Cardiology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria (Email: deddo.moertl{at}meduniwien.ac.at).
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Objectives: Midregional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) was assessed for the importance of influencing factors, the ability to detect left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and the prognostic power compared with B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in chronic heart failure (HF).
Background: MR-proANP is a biologically stable natriuretic peptide measured by a recently developed assay, with potential advantages over conventional natriuretic peptides such as BNP and NT-proBNP.
Methods: We measured MR-proANP, BNP, and NT-proBNP in 797 patients with chronic HF.
Results: All 3 natriuretic peptides were independently influenced by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and the presence of ankle edema. Area under receiver-operator characteristic curves for detection of an LVEF <40% were similar between MR-proANP (0.799 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.753 to 0.844]), BNP (0.803 [95% CI: 0.757 to 0.849]), and NT-proBNP (0.730 [95% CI: 0.681 to 0.778]). During a median observation time of 68 months, 492 (62%) patients died. In multiple Cox regression analysis each natriuretic peptide was the strongest prognostic parameter among various clinical variables. Proportion of explained variation showed that NT-proANP (4.36%) was a significantly stronger predictor of death than both NT-proBNP (2.47%, p < 0.0001) and BNP (2.42%, p < 0.0001).
Conclusions: Despite similarities in influencing factors and detection of reduced LVEF, MR-proANP outperformed BNP and NT-proBNP in the prediction of death. A new assay technology and the high biological stability of MR-proANP are potential explanations for these findings.
Key Words: chronic heart failure • natriuretic peptides • prognosis
|
Abbreviations and Acronyms
| | ANP = atrial natriuretic peptide | | AUC = area under curve | | BMI = body mass index | | BNP = B-type natriuretic peptide | | GFR = glomerular filtration rate | | HF = heart failure | | LVEF = left ventricular ejection fraction | | MR-proANP = midregional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide | | NT-proANP = amino-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide | | NT-proBNP = amino-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide | | NYHA = New York Heart Association | | PEV = proportion of explained variation | | ROC = receiver-operating characteristic |
|
In heart failure (HF), plasma natriuretic peptide levels have been established, not only as excellent diagnostic markers (1), but also for the assessment of the severity of disease (2) and prognosis (3). Atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) are synthesized in the myocardium as their precursors proANP and proBNP, which are then cleaved into the corresponding biologically inactive amino-terminal segments of the precursor molecules (amino-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide [NT-proANP] and amino-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP], respectively) and the biologically active peptides (ANP and BNP). In both clinical routine and research, B-type–related natriuretic peptides (BNP and NT-proBNP) are the most commonly determined natriuretic peptides. However, both atrial and B-type–related natriuretic peptides have their limitations. For example, BNP has a higher short-term variability (half-life: 12 to 22 min) than NT-proBNP (half-life: 60 to 90 min) (4). On the other hand, NT-proBNP is subject to degradation and polymerization. Therefore, the amino-terminal region might be insufficiently accessible for assays (5,6), leading to underestimation of NT-proBNP levels (7). Whereas ANP has a far too short half-life (2 to 5 min) for clinical application (4,8), NT-proANP has already been used for diagnostic and prognostic purposes in heart failure (9,10) and seems more robust to varying levels of patient activity (11). However, diagnostic and prognostic performance of NT-proANP has been reported to be inferior compared to BNP/NT-proBNP (12–14).
Such inferiority might have been due to suboptimal assay design, though, not due to the analyte per se. NT-proANP can also be subject to terminal truncations (5), a fact that has not been considered in the assay designs previously used. Recently, a new sandwich assay for NT-proANP has been developed, utilizing antibodies against the midregion of the molecule, thus termed midregional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP), and which is therefore robust against truncation of the molecule (15).
To investigate whether these biochemical advantages of MR-proANP translate into advantages in clinical application, we directly compared the performance of MR-proANP, NT-proBNP, and BNP for the detection of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and the prediction of death in patients with chronic HF due to systolic dysfunction. Since glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is increasingly recognized as a major confounder of natriuretic peptide levels (16,17), we also evaluated the influence of GFR on their diagnostic and prognostic properties.
|
Methods
|
|---|
Study sample.
Patients were included from previous chronic HF studies conducted at our ambulatory heart failure unit at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria. Samples were collected between 1996 and 2003. Among these patients, whose residual plasma was frozen and stored at –80°C, we selected patients for this investigation according to the following criteria: history of chronic HF due to systolic dysfunction; documented left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography, radionuclide ventriculography, or contrast ventriculography at the time of blood sampling; documented history, demographic data, clinical status, standard laboratory parameters, and medication at the time of blood draw.
The protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee.
End point.
The end point analyzed was all-cause death, with patients receiving a ventricular assist device or heart transplantation censored at time of surgery. Mortality data were obtained from the Austrian Central Office of Civil Registration. End of follow-up was April 2006.
Measurement of natriuretic peptides.
All blood samples were centrifuged within 1 h after collection; the resulting plasma was frozen at –80°C until analyzed in a blinded fashion for this study. Natriuretic peptides were determined using commercially available assays (MR-proANP: BRAHMS AG, Hennigsdorf, Germany [15]; NT-proBNP: Elecsys, Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland; BNP: Triage, Biosite, San Diego, California).
Statistical analysis.
The GFR was estimated using the formula by Cockroft and Gault (18). For calculation and reporting, variables were transformed as follows: BMI in 5-point steps, GFR in 10 ml/min steps, and age in 10-year steps. The LVEF was ranked according to the following classes:  50%, 40% to 49%, 30% to 39%, and <30%.
Categorical data are presented as numbers (percent), continuous variables as mean ± SD. Due to right-skewed distributions, natriuretic peptides are presented as median and quartiles, and enter the models described below as their natural logarithms. Comparisons between groups were performed using chi-square tests for categorical data and the Student t test for unpaired continuous data. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for each combination of natriuretic peptides.
The influences of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), LVEF, GFR, and ankle edema on the level of BNP, NT-proBNP, or MR-proANP were investigated using a multiple linear regression model. The results are presented by regression coefficients on the one hand and by proportions of explained variation (PEVs) on the other. Since the dependent variables of the regression models (the natriuretic peptides) were log-transformed, regression results are given as multiplicative factors, which are the exponentials of the estimated regression coefficients. Whereas regression coefficients show the direction and strength of a potential influence, PEVs allow for presentation and comparison of the proportion of the variability observed in the outcome that is explained by various independent variables, and thus their prognostic importance. Partial PEVs are given for each variable, thus adjusting for the respective remaining variables in the model. PEVs were calculated and compared with the method by Heinze and Schemper (19) using the conventional linear regression R2 as measure of importance. For each natriuretic peptide, p values for all pairwise comparisons were corrected for multiple testing using the Shaffer method (20). To compare the influence of GFR on natriuretic peptide levels, the respective regression coefficients of a multivariate and multiple linear regression model were tested for equality.
The ability of the natriuretic peptides to detect an LVEF <40% was assessed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves and expressed by the area under curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals, which were compared by the method of DeLong et al. (21). A cutoff point was determined exploratively as the point on the ROC curve closest to the upper left corner. In order to investigate whether each natriuretic peptide's influence on LVEF depends on the GFR level, the interaction term of GFR with each natriuretic peptide was tested against 0 in multinomial logistic regression models with LVEF as an ordered dependent variable and sex, age, and BMI as adjustment variables in addition to GFR and the natriuretic peptides.
In order to assess and compare the prognostic values of different parameters, univariate and multiple Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed. To determine which of the natriuretic peptides were independent predictors of death, we calculated adjusted multiple Cox models for each natriuretic peptide separately. For confounding variables, we entered the following predictors of death in chronic HF as previously published in a systematic review (3): age, sex, GFR, the presence of diabetes mellitus, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, LVEF, plasma sodium concentrations, BMI, systolic blood pressure, and the presence of ankle edema.
Finally, a full model with all 3 natriuretic peptides and all of the previously-listed predictors of death was calculated in order to determine which of the natriuretic peptides (if any) remained independent predictors of death.
To investigate whether each natriuretic peptide's influence on survival depends on the GFR level, the interaction term of GFR with each natriuretic peptide was tested against 0. The relative importance of the 3 natriuretic peptides to predict death was assessed by calculating the PEV. Testing for statistically significant differences between the PEVs of each natriuretic peptide was performed as previously described (19).
The reported p values are the results of 2-sided tests; values of p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina).
|
Results
|
|---|
Patient characteristics.
The study population included 797 patients with chronic HF comprising a wide range of ages (15 to 84 years), nutritional status (BMI: 16 to 52 kg/m2), renal function (GFR: 7 to 232 ml/min), and severity of HF as reflected by NYHA functional class, LVEF, and natriuretic peptide levels. Sex-specific baseline characteristics are presented in Table 1.
Factors influencing natriuretic peptide levels.
Natriuretic peptides were highly correlated with one another, with correlation coefficients (r) of 0.82 (MR-proANP with NT-proBNP), 0.87 (MR-proANP with BNP), and 0.86 (NT-proBNP with BNP; p < 0.0001).
Multiple linear regression analysis showed that LVEF, GFR, and the presence of ankle edema were independent predictors of the 3 natriuretic peptides, whereas age and BMI were not. Sex was an independent predictor of MR-proANP and BNP, but not NT-proBNP (Table 2). When adjusted for the other 5 variables, a 1-class decline in LVEF (50%, 40% to 49%, 30% to 39%, and <30%) corresponded to 39%, 48%, and 78% increases in MR-proANP, NT-BNP, and BNP, respectively; a 10 ml/min decline in GFR corresponded to 15%, 18%, and 15% increases, respectively; and patients with ankle edema had 77%, 110%, and 149% higher levels of MR-proANP, NT-proBNP, and BNP, respectively, than patients without.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Assessing the Independent Influence of Different Variables on Natriuretic Peptides
|
|
Partial (after adjustment for the respective other 5 confounding variables) PEVs showed that LVEF, GFR, and the presence of ankle edema had significantly more influence on each natriuretic peptide than age, BMI, and sex (corrected p < 0.05 for each comparison) (Fig. 1). Consistently, the combination of only LVEF, GFR, and the presence of ankle edema explained 38%, 33%, and 28% of the variation of MR-proANP, BNP, and NT-proBNP, respectively, whereas adding age, BMI, and sex did not significantly increase the explained variation of the natriuretic peptides (MR-proANP: 39%, BNP: 33%, NT-proBNP: 28%). No difference in the influence of GFR on levels of the 3 natriuretic peptide levels was found.
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 1 Factors Influencing Natriuretic Peptides
Relative influence of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), glomerular filtration rate (GFR), the presence of ankle edema (edema), age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) on levels of midregional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) (A), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (B), and amino-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) (C), as expressed by the partial proportion of explained variation. LVEF, GFR, and edema had a significantly stronger influence than age, sex, and BMI on levels of all 3 natriuretic peptides.
|
|
Detection of severity of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
ROC curves (Fig. 2) of natriuretic peptides to detect an LVEF <40% showed that MR-proANP and BNP had a higher accuracy than NT-proBNP (p < 0.0001 for each comparison), whereas no difference was found between MR-proANP and BNP (p = 0.7411). Respective optimized cutoff points with sensitivity and specificity are presented in Table 3. A dependence on GFR level of each natriuretic peptide's influence on LVEF could not be detected.
Prediction of death.
Median (lower, upper quartile) follow-up time was 68 (55, 77) months. A total of 492 patients (62%) died, 49 (6%) received a ventricular assist device, and 25 (3%) received a heart transplantation as their first event.
All 3 natriuretic peptides were significant predictors of death, even after adjustment for the pre-defined confounders (Table 4). Every doubling of MR-proANP, NT-proBNP, and BNP levels increased the risk of death by 54%, 27%, and 23%, respectively. When all 3 natriuretic peptides were entered in the model, only MR-proANP remained an independent predictor of death, as did age, sex, NYHA functional class, LVEF, and systolic blood pressure, but not the BNPs or GFR. The partial PEVs to predict death were significantly higher for MR-proANP (4.91%) than for NT-proBNP (3.12%) and BNP (2.78%) (Fig. 3). The influence of each natriuretic peptide on death was not dependent on GFR.
View larger version (33K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 3 Prediction of Death
Relative importance of MR-proANP, NT-proBNP, and BNP to predict death as expressed by the partial proportion of explained variation. MR-proANP was a significantly stronger predictor of death than NT-proBNP and BNP. Abbreviations as in Figure 1.
|
|
Similar results were obtained for the prediction of cardiovascular death (91% of all-cause death, data not shown).
|
Discussion
|
|---|
Despite slight advantages for MR-proANP and BNP over NT-proBNP, all 3 natriuretic peptides performed similarly in the assessment of LVEF. As regards prediction of death, MR-proANP clearly outperformed NT-proBNP and BNP. Renal dysfunction had a strong influence on levels of all 3 natriuretic peptides to a similar degree but had no impact on their diagnostic or prognostic performance.
Factors influencing natriuretic peptide levels.
Previous works have recognized a variety of noncardiac factors influencing natriuretic peptide levels, including age, sex, BMI, and renal function (22–24). In our study, all 3 natriuretic peptides were to a higher degree dependent on LVEF, GFR, and the presence of ankle edema, whereas age, BMI, and sex contributed only marginally to explain natriuretic peptide levels. This supports the use of natriuretic peptides as biomarkers for the severity of HF, since a decline in LVEF, fluid retention, and HF-associated deterioration in renal function (the so-called cardiorenal syndrome) are all expressions of the progression of HF.
Age, sex, and BMI have been described as factors influencing natriuretic peptide levels in subjects without HF, so it has been suggested that reference values should be adjusted to these confounders (25). Although this might be relevant in diagnosing unknown HF (26), our data suggest that the influence of age, sex, and BMI is negligible in patients with known chronic HF when other, more disease-related factors such as ventricular function, volume status, and renal function become relevant.
Estimation of the severity of systolic dysfunction by natriuretic peptides.
MR-proANP, NT-proBNP, and BNP performed well in detecting a reduced LVEF (<40%, AUCs from 0.73 to 0.80). The AUCs are on the same order of magnitude as in previous reports evaluating the performance to detect an LVEF <40% in patients with known cardiac disease (14) but lower than in studies investigating the usage of natriuretic peptides for the diagnosis of unknown heart failure. A potential explanation for this finding is that HF treatment by reducing wall stress confounds the relation between LVEF and natriuretic peptides found in untreated patients.
NT-proBNP performed slightly worse than the other 2 peptides, a difference that reached statistical significance due to the large patient population but can be considered of minor clinical relevance. Data on a differential influence of renal function on natriuretic peptides, which might explain the diagnostic inferiority of NT-proBNP compared with BNP, are conflicting (16,17). In our study, GFR had a similar influence on the 3 natriuretic peptides, and consistently, the ability of each natriuretic peptide to detect an LVEF <40% was not dependent on GFR. Therefore, it seems that in a chronic HF population: 1) there is no need for threshold adaption of natriuretic peptides according to GFR; and 2) even in the presence of renal dysfunction, there is sustained, similar diagnostic performance in all 3 natriuretic peptides.
A previous study found that NT-proANP had a significantly lower diagnostic accuracy (AUC: 0.65) than NT-proBNP (AUC: 0.79) and BNP (AUC: 0.83) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (14). This is in accordance with other investigations showing that the inverse relation of LVEF with BNP was stronger than with ANP or NT-proANP (12,13). In contrast, another study indicated a better detection of reduced LVEF by MR-proANP than by NT-proBNP (27). We believe that differences in the analytical method used are the most probable reasons for the comparatively high diagnostic power of MR-proANP. Conventional NT-proANP assays use an antibody against the N-terminal region of proANP1-98 combined with a second antibody against either the midregion (28), or C-terminal region (29). However, under certain conditions, the amino-terminal region might be minimally accessible for antibody binding (6,30), because proANP1-98 can be subject to further fragmentation (5,31). We used a conceptually different sandwich immunoassay for MR-proANP (amino acids 53 to 90) (15), which has shown more biochemical stability and might therefore explain the improved diagnostic accuracy of MR-proANP (12–14).
Whereas NT-proBNP has been previously described as a relatively stable molecule in vitro (32), it is subject to truncation in vivo (5,6) to an even higher degree than NT-proANP, and especially in NT-proBNP, the smallest fragments can only be detected by assays directed at the central part of the molecule, leading to an underestimation of up to 40% with conventional assays (5).
Prediction of death.
There are sparse data comparing the prognostic power of peptides of the ANP and the BNP families. Tsutamoto et al. (8) found BNP more useful than ANP to predict mortality in chronic HF, which can be attributed to the longer plasma half-life of BNP (4,33). Gegenhuber et al. (28) found that MR-proANP and BNP were comparable predictors of 1-year survival in patients hospitalized for acute HF. A similar prognostic power of NT-proANP and NT-proBNP to predict mortality was also found after myocardial infarction (29) and in community-based populations without HF (34).
The reason for the prognostic superiority of MR-proANP might again be explained by the higher biological stability of the molecule and the usage of an assay directed to the midregion of the molecule. Furthermore, it has been shown that NT-proANP (compared with NT-proBNP and BNP) levels are very robust against variability due to physical activity (11). GFR, however, as shown in our study, does not seem to be a major confounder of the prognostic power of natriuretic peptides and therefore does not account for any differences in the prediction of death.
Study limitations.
A recent study has shown that the NT-proBNP assay we used markedly underestimates NT-proBNP values, whereas the BNP assay we used measured both BNP and proBNP (7). Therefore, we must assume that the comparative diagnostic and prognostic performance of natriuretic peptides reflect assay rather than analyte properties, so that our conclusions can only refer to the assays used in the present study and not to other assays or the natriuretic peptides as analytes themselves. To answer the question of which analyte is better, more sensitive and specific assays for these molecules are needed.
The study population consisted of patients from previous prospective studies, of which 100 patients had been randomized to beta-blocker or placebo for approximately 13 months. Given the high total patient number and the high observation time of the present study, we estimate the inherent bias as minimal.
Since MR-proANP is a new marker, no data exist on the long-term in vitro stability at –80°C. However, extensive in vitro stability testing at various conditions (15) and the high diagnostic and prognostic accuracy indirectly imply a negligible noise due to in vitro instability.
Our results cannot be extrapolated to a patient population without a history of systolic HF. Especially the diagnostic accuracies of natriuretic peptides to detect an LVEF <40% are likely to be lower in a less selected HF population.
|
Conclusions
|
|---|
In patients with chronic HF due to systolic dysfunction, MR-proANP, NT-proBNP, and BNP are good, comparable markers for the assessment of the severity of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and strong independent predictors of death. Using a new assay directed at the midregion of the molecule, MR-proANP outperformed BNP and NT-proBNP in the prediction of death. The reasons for these findings might be the new assay technology and high biological stability of MR-proANP in vivo, whereas the confounding factor renal dysfunction did not influence the diagnostic or prognostic power of MR-proANP, NT-proBNP, and BNP.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
Dr. Bergmann is a member of the board of directors of and holds ownership in B.R.A.H.M.S. AG (MR-proANP). Drs. Struck and Morgenthaler are employees of B.R.A.H.M.S. AG. Drs. Bergmann and Struck hold patent rights to MR-proANP.
|
References
|
|---|
1. Hobbs FD, Davis RC, Roalfe AK, Hare R, Davies MK, Kenkre JE. Reliability of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide assay in diagnosis of heart failure BMJ 2002;324:1498-1500.[Abstract/Free Full Text]2. Sakurai S, Adachi H, Hasegawa A, et al. Brain natriuretic peptide facilitates severity classification of stable chronic heart failure with left ventricular dysfunction Heart 2003;89:661-662.[Free Full Text] 3. Doust JA, Pietrzak E, Dobson A, Glasziou P. How well does B-type natriuretic peptide predict death and cardiac events in patients with heart failure: systematic review BMJ 2005;330:625-627.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 4. Felker GM, Petersen JW, Mark DB. Natriuretic peptides in the diagnosis and management of heart failure CMAJ 2006;175:611-617.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 5. Ala-Kopsala M, Magga J, Peuhkurinen K, et al. Molecular heterogeneity has a major impact on the measurement of circulating N-terminal fragments of A- and B-type natriuretic peptides Clin Chem 2004;50:1576-1588.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 6. Seidler T, Pemberton C, Yandle T, Espiner E, Nicholls G, Richards M. The amino terminal regions of proBNP and proANP oligomerise through leucine zipper-like coiled-coil motifs Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1999;255:495-501.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 7. Liang F, O'Rear J, Schellenberger U, et al. Evidence for functional heterogeneity of circulating B-type natriuretic peptide J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:1071-1078.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 8. Tsutamoto T, Wada A, Maeda K, et al. Attenuation of compensation of endogenous cardiac natriuretic peptide system in chronic heart failure Circulation 1997;96:509-516.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 9. Dickstein K, Larsen AI, Bonarjee V, Thoresen M, Aarsland T, Hall C. Plasma proatrial natriuretic factor is predictive of clinical status in patients with congestive heart failure Am J Cardiol 1995;76:679-683.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 10. Dickstein K, Aarsland T, Hall C. Plasma N-terminal atrial natriuretic factor: a predictor of survival in patients with congestive heart failure J Card Fail 1997;3:83-89.[CrossRef][Medline] 11. Wijbenga JA, Balk AH, Boomsma F, Man in't Veld AJ, Hall C. Cardiac peptides differ in their response to exercise Eur Heart J 1999;20:1424-1428.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 12. Choy AM, Darbar D, Lang CC, et al. Detection of left ventricular dysfunction after acute myocardial infarction Br Heart J 1994;72:16-22.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 13. Yamamoto K, Burnett Jr. JC, Jougasaki M, et al. Superiority of brain natriuretic peptide as a hormonal marker of ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction and ventricular hypertrophy Hypertension 1996;28:988-994.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 14. Hammerer-Lercher A, Neubauer E, Muller S, Pachinger O, Puschendorf B, Mair J. Head-to-head comparison of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide in diagnosing left ventricular dysfunction Clin Chim Acta 2001;310:193-197.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 15. Morgenthaler NG, Struck J, Thomas B, Bergmann A. Immunoluminometric assay for the midregion of pro-atrial natriuretic peptide in human plasma Clin Chem 2004;50:234-236.[Free Full Text] 16. Luchner A, Hengstenberg C, Lowel H, Riegger GA, Schunkert H, Holmer S. Effect of compensated renal dysfunction on approved heart failure markers Hypertension 2005;46:118-123.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 17. Vickery S, Price CP, John RI, et al. B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino-terminal proBNP in patients with CKD Am J Kidney Dis 2005;46:610-620.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 18. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine Nephron 1976;16:31-41.[Web of Science][Medline] 19. Heinze G, Schemper M. Comparing the importance of prognostic factors in Cox and logistic regression using SAS Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2003;71:155-163.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 20. Shaffer J. Modified sequentially rejective multiple test procedures J Am Stat Assoc 1985;81:826-831.[CrossRef][Web of Science] 21. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach Biometrics 1988;44:837-845.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 22. James SK, Lindahl B, Siegbahn A, et al. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and other risk markers for the separate prediction of mortality and subsequent myocardial infarction in patients with unstable coronary artery disease Circulation 2003;108:275-281.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 23. Redfield MM, Rodeheffer RJ, Jacobsen SJ, Mahoney DW, Bailey KR, Burnett Jr JC. Plasma brain natriuretic peptide to detect preclinical ventricular systolic or diastolic dysfunction: a community-based study Circulation 2004;109:3176-3181.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 24. Redfield MM, Rodeheffer RJ, Jacobsen SJ, Mahoney DW, Bailey KR, Burnett Jr JC. Plasma brain natriuretic peptide concentration: impact of age and gender J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;40:976-982.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 25. Costello-Boerrigter LC, Boerrigter G, Redfield MM, et al. Amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and B-type natriuretic peptide in the general community J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:345-353.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 26. Anwaruddin S, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baggish A, et al. Renal function, congestive heart failure, and amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide measurement J Am Coll Cardiol 2006;47:91-97.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 27. Elmas E, Brueckmann M, Lang S, et al. Midregional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide is a useful indicator for the detection of impaired left ventricular function in patients with coronary artery disease Int J Cardiol 2008;128:244-249.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 28. Gegenhuber A, Struck J, Dieplinger B, et al. Comparative evaluation of B-type natriuretic peptide, mid-regional pro-A-type natriuretic peptide, mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin, and Copeptin to predict 1-year mortality in patients with acute destabilized heart failure J Card Fail 2007;13:42-49.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 29. Squire IB, O'Brien RJ, Demme B, Davies JE, Ng LL. N-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (N-ANP) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (N-BNP) in the prediction of death and heart failure in unselected patients following acute myocardial infarction Clin Sci (Lond) 2004;107:309-316.[Medline] 30. Baertschi AJ, Monnier D, Schmidt U, Levitan ES, Fakan S, Roatti A. Acid prohormone sequence determines size, shape, and docking of secretory vesicles in atrial myocytes Circ Res 2001;89:E23-E29.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 31. Daggubati S, Parks JR, Overton RM, Cintron G, Schocken DD, Vesely DL. Adrenomedullin, endothelin, neuropeptide Y, atrial, brain, and C-natriuretic prohormone peptides compared as early heart failure indicators Cardiovasc Res 1997;36:246-255.[Abstract/Free Full Text] 32. Downie PF, Talwar S, Squire IB, Davies JE, Barnett DB, Ng LL. Assessment of the stability of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in vitro: implications for assessment of left ventricular dysfunction Clin Sci (Lond) 1999;97:255-258.[Medline] 33. Kimura K, Yamaguchi Y, Horii M, et al. ANP is cleared much faster than BNP in patients with congestive heart failure Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:699-702.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 34. Laukkanen JA, Kurl S, Ala-Kopsala M, et al. Plasma N-terminal fragments of natriuretic propeptides predict the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality in middle-aged men Eur Heart J 2006;27:1230-1237.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Related Article
-
Inside This Issue
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2009 53: A30.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
M. Magnusson, A. Jujic, B. Hedblad, G. Engstrom, M. Persson, J. Struck, N. G. Morgenthaler, P. Nilsson, C. Newton-Cheh, T. J. Wang, et al.
Low Plasma Level of Atrial Natriuretic Peptide Predicts Development of Diabetes: The Prospective Malmo Diet and Cancer Study
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.,
February 1, 2012;
97(2):
638 - 645.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. S. Sabatine, D. A. Morrow, J. A. de Lemos, T. Omland, S. Sloan, P. Jarolim, S. D. Solomon, M. A. Pfeffer, and E. Braunwald
Evaluation of Multiple Biomarkers of Cardiovascular Stress for Risk Prediction and Guiding Medical Therapy in Patients With Stable Coronary Disease
Circulation,
January 17, 2012;
125(2):
233 - 240.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. A. Lurati Buse, M. T. Koller, C. Burkhart, M. D. Seeberger, and M. Filipovic
The Predictive Value of Preoperative Natriuretic Peptide Concentrations in Adults Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Anesth. Analg.,
May 1, 2011;
112(5):
1019 - 1033.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Gardner
25 Prognostication
Oxford Textbook of Heart Failure,
January 1, 2011;
1(1):
med-9780199577729-chapter - med-9780199577729-chapter.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. S. Jaffe
Chapter 33 The use of biomarkers for acute cardiovascular disease
The ESC Textbook of Acute and Intensive Cardiac Care,
December 1, 2010;
1(1):
med-9780199584314-chapter - med-9780199584314-chapter.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Chenevier-Gobeaux, S. Guerin, S. Andre, P. Ray, L. Cynober, S. Gestin, J.-L. Pourriat, and Y.-E. Claessens
Midregional Pro-Atrial Natriuretic Peptide for the Diagnosis of Cardiac-Related Dyspnea according to Renal Function in the Emergency Department: A Comparison with B-Type Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) and N-Terminal ProBNP
Clin. Chem.,
November 1, 2010;
56(11):
1708 - 1717.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. A. Truong, E. Siegel, M. Karakas, J. L. Januzzi Jr., F. Bamberg, A. A. Mahabadi, S. Dasdemir, T. J. Brady, A. Bergmann, J. Kunde, et al.
Relation of Natriuretic Peptides and Midregional Proadrenomedullin to Cardiac Chamber Volumes by Computed Tomography in Patients without Heart Failure: From the ROMICAT Trial
Clin. Chem.,
April 1, 2010;
56(4):
651 - 660.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Dorfmuller, D. Montani, and M. Humbert
Beyond arterial remodelling: pulmonary venous and cardiac involvement in patients with systemic sclerosis-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension
Eur. Respir. J.,
January 1, 2010;
35(1):
6 - 8.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
Methods