Why the study?
How do different types of cardiac load affect plasma levels of BNP and ANP in children with heart disease?
How do different types of cardiac load affect plasma levels of BNP and ANP in children with heart disease?
In children with heart disease, systolic dysfunction and volume overload are associated with significantly higher natriuretic peptide levels compared to pressure overload or no overload.
Natriuretic peptide levels associate with systolic dysfunction and volume overload in children; hypothesis-generating for load-specific monitoring, should not yet change practice.
Natriuretic peptide levels B (BNP) and A (ANP) have been described in children with different diagnose of congenital heart defects (CHD). However, the impact of the type of cardiac load per se on natriuretic peptide levels, irrespective of diagnosis, has not been reported. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the levels of BNP and ANP in children with congenital and acquired heart disease according to different types of cardiac load. Plasma BNP and ANP were analysed in 137 children with CHD/heart disease, median age 2.9 (0.3-16.7) years. Haemodynamic load was classified as: no overload, pressure overload, volume overload of right and/or left ventricle and systolic ventricular dysfunction. Twenty-three children without heart disease served as controls for the natriuretic peptide measurements. The highest BNP and ANP values were observed in the systolic dysfunction, 613 ng l(-1) (81.8-3910) and 431 (43.8-1990), and volume groups, 29.8 (5.5-352) and 93.0 (15.9-346), respectively, whereas the values in the pressure, 17.9 (0.7-315) and 51.9 (8.7-210), and no overload groups, 10.3 (0.2-28.1) and 28.6 (8.6-105), respectively, were only slightly higher than those in the controls 4.7 (0.0-17.7) and 32.9 (11.7-212.2), respectively. The highest BNP and ANP values were seen in children with systolic dysfunction, while volume overload in the absence of heart failure resulted in higher levels than pressure overload.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Westerlind et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: