Do age, race, sex, and BMI affect the diagnostic performance of MR-proANP for acute heart failure in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea?
The diagnostic performance of MR-proANP at the 120 pmol/L cut-off to rule out acute heart failure remains robust across most demographic subgroups, though lower cut-offs may optimize sensitivity in younger or higher BMI patients.
AIMS: Midregional pro atrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) is useful for diagnosing acute heart failure (HF) in patients presenting to the Emergency Department with dyspnoea. Optimal interpretation of MR-proANP requires understanding of how various demographic variables influence its levels and performance as a diagnostic marker. We sought to determine how age, race, sex, and body mass index (BMI) affect the levels and interpretation of MR-proANP for the diagnosis of acute HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Biomarkers in Acute Heart Failure (BACH) study was an international 15-centre study of 1641 patients presenting to the Emergency Department with acute dyspnoea. Of these, 1352 had complete information on age, race, sex, and BMI. MR-proANP levels increased with age and were higher in men and in patients with lower BMI. MR-proANP performed better as a diagnostic marker in younger individuals and in blacks compared with whites. Despite this, MR-proANP at the recommended cut-off point of 120 pmol/L was >90 % sensitive in ruling out the diagnosis of acute HF in all subgroups of patients except white subjects <50 years old. CONCLUSION: Age, race, sex, and BMI affect MR-proANP levels to various degrees. However, the diagnostic performance of the recommended cut-off point of 120 pmol/L to rule out acute HF was robust across most subgroups. Although both sex and BMI affected MR-proANP levels, they did not alter its overall diagnostic performance. Lower cut-off points for MR-proANP could be considered in younger patients and in patients with a higher BMI, to optimize diagnostic sensitivity.
Daniels et al. (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: