Why the study?
Is Nt-proANP less variable than C-ANP in patients with chronic cardiac failure and matched controls?
Is Nt-proANP less variable than C-ANP in patients with chronic cardiac failure and matched controls?
Nt-proANP exhibits significantly less short-term variability than C-ANP, making it a more suitable biomarker for diagnostic or prognostic use in chronic heart failure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support Nt-proANP over C-ANP for lower variability in heart failure; leaves open diagnostic or prognostic superiority.
BACKGROUND: Natriuretic peptides are frequently measured in patients with chronic cardiac failure (CCF). We set out to compare the variability of atrial natriuretic peptide (C-ANP) and its precursor N-terminal pro-ANP (Nt-proANP) to decide which would be more suitable for routine use. METHODS: Ten males with compensated CCF (age range 62-76 years) were studied, with matched controls. Blood was withdrawn every 2 min for 90 min from a forearm vein, and plasma C-ANP and Nt-proANP were measured by radioimmunoassay. RESULTS: Levels were elevated in the patient group [C-ANP: median 268 (range 171-423) vs. 40 (28-56) ng L-1, P < 0.0002 Mann-Whitney U-test; Nt-proANP: 1955 (562-4451) vs. 621 (409-961) pmol L-1, P < 0.003]. A similar number of 'peaks' was observed in both groups with both peptides, about one every 10 min, and their relative height was similar in both groups. Variability was greater for C-ANP than for Nt-proANP in both patients [coefficient of variation of means 51 (range 36-70) vs. 3.6 (2.1-6.2)%, P < 0.01; sign test] and controls [65 (49-83) vs. 8.9 (4.7-13.5)%, P < 0.01]. CONCLUSION: Nt-proANP is less variable than C-ANP and hence more suited for diagnostic or prognostic use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McDowell et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: