Background and purpose: Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are commonly used to predict clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). The prognostic role of BNP/NT-proBNP in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and comorbid HF is controversial. The current study aimed to understand the clinical importance of BNP/NT-proBNP measurement in predicting the outcomes of AF patients regardless of HF status. Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, EBSCOHost, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, and ClinicalKey. Studies that reported all-cause mortality, stroke/systemic embolic events (SEE)/thromboembolic events (TE), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and major bleeding were included in this study. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Studies that reported BNP data but not NT-proBNP were also included. BNP/NT-proBNP is categorized as high and low level based on the highest and lowest groups compared in the included studies. Results: Sixteen studies (n = 45,400) were included in data synthesis: six were post hoc analysis of randomized controlled trials and the remaining were prospective cohort studies. The included studies were published between 2011 and 2022. The follow-up duration ranged from 1.0 to 5.2 years. High level of BNP/NT-proBNP was associated with a significantly increased risk of all-cause mortality (pooled hazard ratio [HR]: 2.26, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.98–2.56), stroke/SEE/TE (pooled HR: 2.45, 95% CI: 2.07–2.90), and MACE (pooled HR: 2.38, 95% CI: 1.90–2.99) in patients with AF; the pooled HR of major bleeding was 1.17 (95% CI: 1.01–1.36). Sensitivity analysis in patients with AF and HF produced similar results. Conclusions: BNP and NT-proBNP are strong predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with AF regardless of HF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lidvihurin et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: