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. RESULTS: , lower rule-in thresholds (≥220 pg/mL) provided good specificity (88% 95% CI, 73%-100%; 93% 95% CI, 81%-100% and 100% in validation cohorts). 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.
Reddy et al. (Wed,) studied this question.