Do more specific assays for B-type natriuretic peptides better predict heart failure in breathless patients than the currently used assays?

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Private grant(s) and/or Sponsorship. Main funding source(s): Heart Foundation of New Zealand Health Research Council of New Zealand Introduction The cardioprotective B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP1-32) and its inactive congener N-terminal proBNP1-76 (NTBNP1-76) are produced from their precursor peptide proBNP, proportionate to cardiac dysfunction, underpinning their now-universal endorsement as markers for heart failure (HF) diagnosis. ProBNP concentrations are also increased in patients with HF. BNP1-32 is difficult to measure in plasma due to its low concentration and short half-life. Thus, less specific BNP and NT-proBNP assays are routinely used in the diagnosis and prognosis of HF. However, these assays also variably detect proBNP, BNP metabolites, and glycosylated proBNP or glycosylated NT-proBNP. How well these assays compare to highly specific assays that only detect BNP1-32 or NTBNP1-76 has not been assessed. Purpose We will compare the performance of assays specific for BNP1-32 and NTBNP1-76 only with that of a less specific commercially available NT-proBNP assay that is widely used for the diagnosis of heart failure. Methods Plasma samples obtained from patients presenting to the Emergency Department with breathlessness (n = 195) were assayed using a commercially available NT-proBNP assay and our specific in-house BNP1-32 (1) and NTBNP1-76 (2) assays. The diagnostic performance for clinically adjudicated acute HF (AHF, 60/195 patients, 31%) was assessed for each assay using receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis. Results Median (IQR) concentrations (n = 195) of NT-proBNP (101.7 [29.7, 353] pmol/L) and NTBNP1-76 (108.6 [25, 442] pmol/L) were markedly higher than BNP1-32 concentrations (1.9 [0.3-6.6] pmol/L) (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Peptide concentrations were higher in patients with heart failure (n = 60) than those without heart failure for NT-proBNP (559 [247,1097] vs 46 [16,123] pmol/L), NTBNP1-76 (441.9 [155,1205] vs 37.9 [15,131] pmol/L) and BNP1-32 (7.8 [4,17] vs 0.5 [0.2,2.4] pmol/L) (all P < 0.001). NT-proBNP assay results were highly correlated with our specific NTBNP1-76 and BNP1-32 assays (Spearman’s rho = 0.91 and 0.92, respectively, both P < 0.001, n = 195). NT-proBNP, NTBNP1-76 and BNP1-32 assays performed similarly in the diagnosis of AHF (AUC [95%CI] = 0.88 [0.84-0.93], 0.85 [0.79-0.91] and 0.89 [0.84-0.94] respectively (all p < 0.001). Discussion Despite the differences in assay specificity all 3 assays performed similarly in the diagnosis of AHF in patients presenting with breathlessness. Conclusions All three assays diagnosed heart failure similarly, providing evidence that the widely used NT-proBNP assay can reliably be used as a proxy for active BNP1-32 in the diagnosis of acute heart failure. Whether this less specific NT-proBNP assay and our specific NTBNP1-76 and BNP1-32 assays (i) offer similar prognostic information and whether (ii) their marker performance is differentially altered by common confounders including age, renal dysfunction, obesity and atrial fibrillation, remain to be ascertained.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.