Key result
BNP and NT-pro-BNP are the most widely studied biomarkers useful for evaluating dyspnea and risk stratification in heart failure, but should supplement rather than replace clinical assessment.
This review highlights that while BNP and NT-proBNP are established adjunctive tools for heart failure diagnosis and prognosis, novel inflammatory and remodeling biomarkers remain under investigation.
Reinforces supplementing clinical assessment with natriuretic peptides in heart failure; leaves open validation of novel biomarkers before wider adoption.
Nowadays, heart failure (HF) has an increasing prevalence, particularly in the elderly, and is becoming a clinical problem of epidemic proportion in terms of morbidity and mortality. Developing biological markers, that can aid in the diagnosis of HF and in the differentiation of congestive heart failure (CHF) from other causes of dyspnoea, will reduce the cost of health care. However, an ideal biomarker has not yet been identified. Potential markers of HF include neuro-hormonal mediators, markers of myocyte injury, and indicators of systemic inflammation. Among these, the BNP and NT-pro-BNP are the most widely studied and appear to be useful in patients with dyspnoea of unknown aetiology, and for risk assessment of patients with established HF. However these markers should be used as an addition tool, and not as a substitute of clinical assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Giuseppina Novo (2009) conducted a review in Heart failure. Biomarkers (BNP, NT-pro-BNP, cytokines, growth factors) was evaluated. BNP and NT-pro-BNP are the most widely studied biomarkers useful for evaluating dyspnea and risk stratification in heart failure, but should supplement rather than replace clinical assessment.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: