Why the study?
The diagnostic performance of NT-proBNP for HFpEF in the ambulatory setting was unknown because previous studies lacked objective reference standards.
Does the use of BMI and atrial fibrillation-stratified NT-proBNP thresholds improve the diagnostic accuracy for HFpEF in ambulatory patients with chronic dyspnea?
Does the use of BMI and atrial fibrillation-stratified NT-proBNP thresholds improve the diagnostic accuracy for HFpEF in ambulatory patients with chronic dyspnea?
Stratifying NT-proBNP diagnostic thresholds by BMI and recognizing its limited utility in patients with atrial fibrillation improves the diagnostic accuracy for HFpEF in ambulatory patients with chronic dyspnea.
BACKGROUND: Plasma NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) is commonly used to diagnose heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), but its diagnostic performance in the ambulatory/outpatient setting is unknown because previous studies lacked objective reference standards. METHODS: Among patients with chronic dyspnea, diagnosis of HFpEF or noncardiac dyspnea was determined conclusively by exercise catheterization in a derivation cohort (n=414), multicenter validation cohort 1 (n=560), validation cohort 2 (n=207), and a nonobese Japanese validation cohort 3 (n=77). Optimal NT-proBNP cut points for HFpEF rule out (optimizing sensitivity) and rule in (optimizing specificity) were derived and tested, stratified by obesity and atrial fibrillation. Derived cut points were tested in 3 additional validation cohorts (cohorts 4-6) in whom HFpEF was diagnosed by resting catheterization only (n=260), previous hospitalization for heart failure (n=447), or exercise echocardiography (n=517), respectively. Findings were consistent in validation cohorts 3 through 6 (sensitivity of <50 pg/mL, 93%-98%; specificity of ≥500 pg/mL, 82%-89%). NT-proBNP provided no incremental discrimination among patients with history of AF; ≥98% of patients with AF and dyspnea were found to have HFpEF in our cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic unexplained dyspnea, current rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP diagnostic thresholds lead to unacceptably high error rates, with important interactions by obesity and AF status. In our study, NT-proBNP provided little value in those with AF and dyspnea because the presence of AF is by itself a robust biomarker of HFpEF. Use of separate rule-in and rule-out diagnostic thresholds stratified by BMI reduces miscategorization and can guide more appropriate use of exercise testing for possible HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Reddy et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: