Key result
Plasma cGMP yields superior sensitivity and specificity over urinary cGMP for diagnosing heart failure.
Why the study?
The diagnostic value of urinary cGMP concentrations for heart failure compared to plasma cGMP concentrations was unclear.
Does measurement of cGMP in plasma versus urine improve the diagnosis of heart failure?
Observational
Does measurement of cGMP in plasma versus urine improve the diagnosis of heart failure?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Plasma cGMP is a more sensitive and specific biomarker for diagnosing heart failure compared to urinary cGMP, which does not correlate with disease severity.
We measured concentrations of guanosine 3',5'-monophosphate (cGMP) in plasma and urine of healthy subjects and patients with congestive heart failure, renal impairment, neoplastic disease, and hepatic cirrhosis. There was no correlation between cGMP concentrations in urine and in plasma. In all patients except those with renal impairment, urinary cGMP concentrations were significantly higher than in healthy persons. Only patients with heart failure or renal impairment showed significantly increased plasma cGMP concentrations. In contrast, cGMP in urine does not relate to the clinically assessed severity of heart failure (New York Heart Association functional classes). Determination of cGMP in plasma results in higher sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing heart failure than measurement of cGMP in urine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jakob et al. (1994) conducted an observational in Congestive heart failure. Plasma cGMP measurement vs. Urinary cGMP measurement was evaluated on Sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: