Why the study?
Does plasma PR3 level predict death or heart failure in post-AMI patients?
Does plasma PR3 level predict death or heart failure in post-AMI patients?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Plasma PR3 is a significant independent predictor of mortality and heart failure incidence following AMI, providing additive prognostic value to NT-proBNP.
A multimarker approach may be useful for risk stratification in AMI (acute myocardial infarction) patients, particularly utilizing pathways that are pathophysiologically distinct. Our aim was to assess the prognostic value of PR3 (proteinase 3) in patients post-AMI. We compared the prognostic value of PR3, an inflammatory marker, with an established marker NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide) post-AMI. We recruited 900 consecutive post-AMI patients (700 men; age, 64.6±12.4 years) in a prospective study with follow-up over 347 (0-764) days. Plasma PR3 was significantly higher in patients who died [666.2 (226.8-4035.5) ng/ml; P<0.001] or were readmitted with heart failure [598 (231.6-1803.9) ng/ml, P<0.004] compared with event-free survivors [486.9 (29.3-3118.2) ng/ml]. Using Cox modelling, log10 PR3 [HR (hazard ratio), 3.80] and log10 NT-proBNP (HR, 2.51) were significant independent predictors of death or heart failure. When patients were stratified by plasma NT-proBNP (median, 1023 pmol/l), PR3 gave additional predictive value for death or heart failure, in both the patients in whom NT-proBNP level was above the median (log rank for trend, 12.54; P<0.0004) and those with NT-proBNP level below the median (log rank for trend, 3.83; P<0.05). Neither marker predicted recurrent AMI. In conclusion, this is the first report showing a potential role for the serine protease PR3 in determining mortality and incidence of heart failure following AMI, independent of established conventional risk factors. PR3 may represent a clinically useful marker of prognosis after an AMI as part of a multimarker strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ng et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: