Key result
Heart failure specialists correctly estimated NT-proBNP prognostic categories in 67.5% of outpatient visits, but were significantly less accurate in patients without a prior measurement (OR 0.05).
Why the study?
Can heart failure specialists accurately predict current NT-proBNP levels in heart failure outpatients based on clinical assessment and prior NT-proBNP measurements?
Cross-Sectional (n=160)
No
Can heart failure specialists accurately predict current NT-proBNP levels in heart failure outpatients based on clinical assessment and prior NT-proBNP measurements?
Heart failure specialists can reasonably estimate current NT-proBNP levels based on clinical assessment if a prior measurement is available and was <4999 pg/mL, suggesting routine serial measurements may not be necessary for all outpatients.
May support selective NT-proBNP testing when prior values exist; leaves open whether routine serial monitoring can be safely reduced in stable outpatients.
BACKGROUND: The value of routine aminoterminal pro type B natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements in outpatient clinics remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the accuracy with which heart failure (HF) specialists can predict NT-proBNP levels in HF outpatients based on clinical assessment. METHODS: We prospectively studied 160 consecutive HF patients followed in an outpatient multidisciplinary HF clinic. During a regular office visit, HF specialists were asked to estimate a patient's current NT-proBNP level based upon their clinical assessment and all available information from their chart, including a previous NT-proBNP level (if available). NT-proBNP estimations were grouped into prognostic categories (<125, 125-1000, 1000-4998, or >/=4999 pg/mL) and comparisons made between actual and estimate values. RESULTS: Overall, HF specialists estimated 67.5% of NT-proBNP levels correctly. After adjusting for clinical characteristics, knowledge of a prior NT-proBNP measurement was the only significant predictor of estimation accuracy (p=0.01). Compared to patients with a prior NT-proBNP level <125 pg/mL, physicians were 95% less likely to get a correct estimation in patients with the highest prior NT-proBNP level (>/=4999 pg/mL). CONCLUSION: HF specialists are reasonably accurate at estimating current NT-proBNP levels based upon clinical assessment and a previous NT-proBNP level, if those levels were < 4999 pg/mL. Likely, initial but not routine NT-proBNP measurements are useful in outpatient HF clinics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sedlak et al. (2008) conducted a cross-sectional in Heart failure (n=160). Clinical assessment by heart failure specialists vs. Actual NT-proBNP measurement was evaluated on Accuracy of predicting NT-proBNP prognostic category. Heart failure specialists correctly estimated NT-proBNP prognostic categories in 67.5% of outpatient visits, but were significantly less accurate in patients without a prior measurement (OR 0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: