Suppr超能文献

N末端前脑钠肽、脑钠肽和N末端前心钠素在诊断左心室功能障碍中的直接比较

Head-to-head comparison of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, brain natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide in diagnosing left ventricular dysfunction.

作者信息

Hammerer-Lercher A, Neubauer E, Müller S, Pachinger O, Puschendorf B, Mair J

机构信息

Department of Medical Chemistry and Biochemistry, Division of Clinical Biochemistry, University of Innsbruck, Fritz-Pregl-Str. 3, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria.

出版信息

Clin Chim Acta. 2001 Aug 20;310(2):193-7. doi: 10.1016/s0009-8981(01)00578-2.

Abstract

Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), NT-proBNP and NT-pro-atrial natriuretic peptide (NT-proANP) were measured in blood samples from 57 patients using immunoassays and immunoradiometric assays to evaluate the usefulness as diagnostic markers for the detection of heart failure. For the detection of impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), receiver operating characteristic curves showed that BNP had the best diagnostic performance with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.75+/-0.06. However, NT-proBNP (AUC: 0.67+/-0.07) and NT-proANP (AUC: 0.69+/-0.08) showed no significant difference to BNP. In a further analysis for the detection of resting LVEF <40%, BNP again was the best marker with an AUC of 0.83+/-0.06. NT-proBNP showed only a slightly smaller AUC (0.79+/-0.07). The AUC for NT-proANP was significantly smaller (0.65+/-0.08) compared to BNP. Additionally, BNP and NT-proBNP correlated negatively with the resting LVEF (BNP: -0.472, p<0.001; NT-proBNP: -0.306, p=0.026), whereas NT-proANP showed no significant correlation. In summary, BNP was the best marker to detect patients with impaired LVEF compared to NT-proBNP and NT-proANP. However, NT-proBNP showed no significant differences to BNP and it is therefore a new promising alternative marker for the detection of left ventricular dysfunction.

摘要

使用免疫测定法和免疫放射测定法对57例患者的血样进行脑钠肽(BNP)、N末端B型利钠肽原(NT-proBNP)和N末端心房利钠肽原(NT-proANP)检测,以评估其作为心力衰竭诊断标志物的效用。对于检测左心室射血分数(LVEF)受损情况,受试者工作特征曲线显示BNP具有最佳诊断性能,曲线下面积(AUC)为0.75±0.06。然而,NT-proBNP(AUC:0.67±0.07)和NT-proANP(AUC:0.69±0.08)与BNP相比无显著差异。在进一步分析静息LVEF<40%的检测时,BNP仍是最佳标志物,AUC为0.83±0.06。NT-proBNP的AUC仅略小(0.79±0.07)。与BNP相比,NT-proANP的AUC显著更小(0.65±0.08)。此外,BNP和NT-proBNP与静息LVEF呈负相关(BNP:-0.472,p<0.001;NT-proBNP:-0.306,p=0.026),而NT-proANP无显著相关性。总之,与NT-proBNP和NT-proANP相比,BNP是检测LVEF受损患者的最佳标志物。然而,NT-proBNP与BNP无显著差异,因此它是检测左心室功能障碍的一种新的有前景的替代标志物。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验