Evidence Hub

The prognostic value of NT-proBNP in 28-day mortality and post-discharge survival in pneumonia: a retrospective cohort study from Taiwan

Van-Dong Nguyen, Hsien-chun Lin, Wen-Chen Lee, Ke-Shiuan Ju, Jinglong Dai, Pei-Ni Hsieh, Chun-Yuan Chen, Chih-Hsin Lee

Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine, 2025

2,805 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background NT-proBNP, traditionally used to assess heart failure, is increasingly recognized for its prognostic value in other diseases. This study evaluates its value in pneumonia. Research design and methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized for pneumonia at Wan Fang Hospital (2017–2021) to investigate whether elevated NT-proBNP levels predicted poorer outcomes. Logistic regression identified risk factors for 28-day mortality, while the Cox regression model identified predictors of post-discharge survival. Results Among 2,805 patients (79.6 ± 13.4 years, female 45%), the 28-day mortality rate was 18.2%, and the median post-discharge follow-up time was 359 days. Moderately (increased but 10000 pg/mL) elevated NT-proBNP levels had higher 28-day mortality compared to normal NT-proBNP; adjusted odds ratios: 2.24 (1.34–3.75, p = 0.002) and 3.57 (2.03–6.27, p < 0.001). Moderately and severely elevated NT-proBNP levels related to shorter survival time than normal NT-proBNP levels; adjusted hazard ratios 1.60 (1.28–2.00, p < 0.001) and 2.03 (1.56–2.63, p < 0.001). All ratios were adjusted with comorbidities, sex, age, and clinical and laboratory tests. Conclusions Elevated NT-proBNP levels predict higher 28-day mortality and shorter survival time in patients with pneumonia across most subpopulations. This marker holds potential as a prognostic biomarker for pneumonia, especially in high-risk patients.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,805 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free