Does MR proANP improve diagnostic accuracy for acute heart failure compared to NT proBNP in patients presenting with acute dyspnoea and atrial fibrillation?
MR proANP and NT proBNP have similar diagnostic accuracy for acute heart failure in patients with atrial fibrillation, though both biomarkers require higher diagnostic cut-off levels in this population compared to patients in sinus rhythm.
Objectives Due to different release mechanisms, mid-regional pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (MR proANP) may be superior to N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT proBNP) in the diagnosis of acute heart failure (AHF) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We compared MR proANP and NT proBNP for their diagnostic value in patients with AF and sinus rhythm (SR). Design Prospective cohort study. Setting University hospital, emergency department. Patients 632 consecutive patients presenting with acute dyspnoea. Main outcome measures MR proANP and NT proBNP plasma levels were determined. The diagnosis of AHF was adjudicated by two independent cardiologists using all available data. Patients received long-term follow-up. Results AF was present in 151 patients (24%). MR proANP and NT proBNP levels were significantly higher in the AF group compared with the SR group (385 (258–598) versus 201 (89–375) pmol/l for MR proANP, p<0.001 and 4916 (2169–10285) versus 1177 (258–5166) pg/ml, p<0.001 for NT proBNP). Diagnostic accuracy in AF patients was similar for MR proANP (0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95) and NT proBNP (0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96). Optimal cut-off levels in AF patients were significantly higher compared with the optimal cut-off levels for patients in SR (MR proANP 240 vs 200 pmol/l; NT proBNP 2670 vs 1500 pg/ml respectively). After adjustment in multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis, MR proANP strongly predicted one-year all-cause mortality (HR=1.13 (1.09–1.17), per 100 pmol/l increase, p<0.001). Conclusion In AF patients, NT proBNP and MR proANP have similar diagnostic value for the diagnosis of AHF. The rhythm at presentation has to be taken into account because plasma levels of both peptides are significantly higher in patients with AF compared with SR.
Eckstein et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: