Why the study?
It was unknown whether biomarkers could enable early identification of women who develop peripartum cardiomyopathy before disease onset.
Do first trimester cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP and hs-cTnI) differ between women who subsequently develop peripartum cardiomyopathy and unaffected pregnancies?
Do first trimester cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP and hs-cTnI) differ between women who subsequently develop peripartum cardiomyopathy and unaffected pregnancies?
First trimester cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP and hs-cTnI) may be elevated in women who later develop peripartum cardiomyopathy, suggesting early subclinical myocardial dysfunction.
May signal early subclinical myocardial stress; hypothesis-generating for PPCM prediction and needs prospective validation.
OBJECTIVE: Whether biomarkers may enable early identification of women who develop peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) prior to disease onset remains a question of interest. STUDY DESIGN: -terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) or high sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) differed among women who developed PPCM versus unaffected pregnancies. Cases were matched to unaffected women by age, race, parity, and gestational age of sample (control A) and then further by blood pressure and pregnancy weight gain (control B). RESULTS: = 0.52). Among both cases and controls, hs-cTnI values were low and often below the limit of detection. CONCLUSION: There were differences in first trimester NT-proBNP and hs-cTnI concentrations between women who subsequently developed PPCM and those who did not, raising the possibility the early pregnancy subclinical myocardial dysfunction may be associated with this late-pregnancy disease. KEY POINTS: · First trimester NT-proBNP is numerically higher among women who subsequently develop PPCM.. · First trimester hs-cTnI was nominally higher among women who developed PPCM versus those who did not.. · A significant proportion of normal pregnant women have undetectable hs-cTnI..
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarma et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: