Why the study?
Do high BNP levels predict mortality in patients with advanced decompensated heart failure?
Do high BNP levels predict mortality in patients with advanced decompensated heart failure?
In advanced heart failure, high BNP levels (≥1,400 pg/mL) identify patients at higher risk of mortality, particularly in those with Chagas disease.
BNP ≥1,400 pg/mL was associated with higher 1-year mortality in advanced HF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before guiding care.
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a condition with poor outcome, especially in advanced cases. Determination of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels is useful in the diagnosis of cardiac decompensation and has also been proving useful in the prognostic evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To verify whether BNP levels are able to identify patients with a poorer outcome and whether it is an independent prognostic factor considering age, gender, cardiac and renal functions, as well as the cause of heart disease. METHODS: 189 patients in functional class III/IV advanced HF were studied. All had systolic dysfunction and had their BNP levels determined during hospitalization. Variables related to mortality were studied using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: BNP levels were higher in patients who died in the first year of follow-up (1,861.9 versus 1,408.1 pg/dL; p = 0.044) and in chagasic patients (1,985 versus 1,452 pg/mL; p = 0.001); the latter had a higher mortality rate in the first year of follow-up (56% versus 35%; p = 0.010). The ROC curve analysis showed that the BNP level of 1,400 pg/mL was the best predictor of events; high levels were associated with lower LVEF (0.23 versus 0.28; p = 0.002) and more severe degree of renal dysfunction (mean urea 92 versus 74.5 mg/dL; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In advanced HF, high BNP levels identified patients at higher risk of a poorer outcome. Chagasic patients showed higher BNP levels than those with heart diseases of other causes, and have poorer prognosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pereira-Barretto et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: