Why the study?
The use of NT-proBNP as an adjunct for assessing acute dyspnea is not common practice in many public hospitals in Malaysia, prompting an evaluation of its utility alongside clinical assessment.
Does NT-proBNP testing accurately identify acute heart failure in patients presenting to the emergency department with persistent acute dyspnea?
Does NT-proBNP testing accurately identify acute heart failure in patients presenting to the emergency department with persistent acute dyspnea?
NT-proBNP testing demonstrates high sensitivity and good positive predictive value for identifying acute heart failure in emergency department patients with persistent dyspnea.
May support NT-proBNP for acute HF identification in ED dyspnea; leaves open prospective validation before practice change.
Acute dyspnea is one of the prevalent reasons for admission to the emergency department. The use of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) as an adjunct for assessing acute dyspnea is not a common practice in many public hospitals in Malaysia. This retrospective review is part of our clinical audit to determine the utility of NT-proBNP as an adjunct to non-standardised clinical evaluation in identifying acute heart failure (HF) in patients with persistent dyspnea (24 h) post-admission. In this cohort of 30 patients with acute dyspnea, NT-proBNP was positive in 20 patients (87%) with acute HF. Three patients (13%) who were treated for septic shock recorded a NT-proBNP false-positive. NT-proBNP demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 90%, a specificity of 70%, a positive predictive value of 85.7% and a negative predictive value of 77.8% in identifying acute HF. These results reinforce that age-stratified NT-proBNP cut-off values are useful for ruling-in or -out acute HF. Thus, NT-proBNP should be considered a crucial point of care, testing to decifer the conundrum of acute dyspneic patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rajah et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: