Why the study?
Does the association between Nt-proBNP and glucometabolic disturbances differ by age and gender in middle-aged and older subjects?
Does the association between Nt-proBNP and glucometabolic disturbances differ by age and gender in middle-aged and older subjects?
The association between Nt-proBNP and glucometabolic disturbances varies by age and gender, suggesting Nt-proBNP should be used cautiously as a surrogate marker for myocardial dysfunction in this context.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Nt-proBNP higher with diabetes only in middle-aged men; leaves open its validity as surrogate marker for myocardial dysfunction across ages and sexes.
OBJECTIVES: Glucometabolic disturbances are associated with myocardial dysfunction. Brain natriuretic peptides (BNP) are used for detecting myocardial dysfunction in clinical practice. However, studies on elderly subjects and gender-specific analyses are sparse. DESIGN: We examined cross-sectional associations between Nt-proBNP and 1) fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2) categories of glucometabolic disturbances, in middle-aged and older subjects (1266 men, 526 women), applying multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: FPG was positively correlated with Nt-proBNP among middle-aged men (p = 0.04) and negatively albeit non-significantly (p = 0.1) among middle-aged women. Weaker non-significant correlations were seen among older subjects. Middle-aged men with new-onset and prevalent diabetes had higher Nt-proBNP than the reference group (FPG ≤5.0 mmol/L): 9.53 (p = 0.002) and 8.23 (p = 0.02) vs. 5.71 pmol/L. No differences in Nt-proBNP between categories of glucometabolic disturbance were observed among older men or women. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate an age- and gender difference in the ability of Nt-proBNP to identify myocardial dysfunction in relation to glucometabolic disturbances. Therefore, Nt-proBNP should be used with caution as a general surrogate marker for myocardial dysfunction in this setting.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leósdóttir et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: