Evidence Hub

NT-proBNP testing for diagnosis and short-term prognosis in acute destabilized heart failure: an international pooled analysis of 1256 patients: the International Collaborative of NT-proBNP Study

Januzzi JL, van Kimmenade R, Lainchbury J, Bayes-Genis A, Ordonez-Llanos J, Santalo-Bel M, Pinto YM, Richards M

European heart journal, 2006

1,256 participants · 1,218 citations

Abstract

AIMS: Experience with amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) testing for evaluation of dyspnoeic patients with suspected acute heart failure (HF) is limited to single-centre studies. We wished to establish broader standards for NT-proBNP testing in a study involving four sites in three continents.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Differences in NT-proBNP levels among 1256 patients with and without acute HF and the relationship between NT-proBNP levels and HF symptoms were examined. Optimal cut-points for diagnosis and prognosis were identified and verified using bootstrapping and multi-variable logistic regression techniques. Seven hundred and twenty subjects (57.3%) had acute HF, whose median NT-proBNP was considerably higher than those without (4639 vs. 108 pg/mL, P75, which yielded 90% sensitivity and 84% specificity for acute HF. An age-independent cut-point of 300 pg/mL had 98% negative predictive value to exclude acute HF. Among those with acute HF, a presenting NT-proBNP concentration >5180 pg/mL was strongly predictive of death by 76 days [odds ratio=5.2, 95% confidence interval (CI)=2.2-8.1, P<0.001].

CONCLUSION: In this multi-centre, international study, NT-proBNP testing was valuable for diagnostic evaluation and short-term prognosis estimation in dyspnoeic subjects with suspected or confirmed acute HF and should establish broader standards for use of the NT-proBNP in dyspnoeic patients.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,256 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