Chioncel Ovidiu, Collins Sean P, Greene Stephen J, Ambrosy Andrew P, Vaduganathan Muthiah, Macarie Cezar, Butler Javed, Gheorghiade Mihai
aInstitute of Emergency for Cardiovascular Diseases 'Professor C.C. Iliescu', University of Medicine and Pharmacy Carol Davila, Bucuresti, Romania bDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee cDivision of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina dBrigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts eDivision of Cardiology, Health Sciences Center, Stony Brook University, SUNY at Stony Brook, New York fCenter for Cardiovascular Innovation, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2016 Aug;17(8):556-68. doi: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000000329.
Heart failure is a clinical syndrome that manifests from various cardiac and noncardiac abnormalities. Accordingly, rapid and readily accessible methods for diagnosis and risk stratification are invaluable for providing clinical care, deciding allocation of scare resources, and designing selection criteria for clinical trials. Natriuretic peptides represent one of the most important diagnostic and prognostic tools available for the care of heart failure patients. Natriuretic peptide testing has the distinct advantage of objectivity, reproducibility, and widespread availability.The concept of tailoring heart failure management to achieve a target value of natriuretic peptides has been tested in various clinical trials and may be considered as an effective method for longitudinal biomonitoring and guiding escalation of heart failure therapies with overall favorable results.Although heart failure trials support efficacy and safety of natriuretic peptide-guided therapy as compared with usual care, the relationship between natriuretic peptide trajectory and clinical benefit has not been uniform across the trials, and certain subgroups have not shown robust benefit. Furthermore, the precise natriuretic peptide value ranges and time intervals of testing are still under investigation. If natriuretic peptides fail to decrease following intensification of therapy, further work is needed to clarify the optimal pharmacologic approach. Despite decreasing natriuretic peptide levels, some patients may present with other high-risk features (e.g. elevated troponin). A multimarker panel investigating multiple pathological processes will likely be an optimal alternative, but this will require prospective validation.Future research will be needed to clarify the type and magnitude of the target natriuretic peptide therapeutic response, as well as the duration of natriuretic peptide-guided therapy in heart failure patients.
心力衰竭是一种由各种心脏和非心脏异常引起的临床综合征。因此,快速且易于获得的诊断和风险分层方法对于提供临床护理、决定稀缺资源的分配以及设计临床试验的入选标准而言非常宝贵。利钠肽是可用于心力衰竭患者护理的最重要的诊断和预后工具之一。利钠肽检测具有客观性、可重复性和广泛可用性的显著优势。在各种临床试验中已经对根据利钠肽的目标值调整心力衰竭管理的概念进行了测试,并且可以将其视为一种有效的纵向生物监测方法以及指导心力衰竭治疗升级的方法,总体结果良好。尽管与常规治疗相比,心力衰竭试验支持利钠肽指导治疗的有效性和安全性,但在各个试验中利钠肽轨迹与临床获益之间的关系并不一致,并且某些亚组并未显示出显著的获益。此外,利钠肽的确切值范围和检测时间间隔仍在研究中。如果在强化治疗后利钠肽未能降低,则需要进一步开展工作以阐明最佳的药物治疗方法。尽管利钠肽水平降低,但一些患者可能会出现其他高危特征(例如肌钙蛋白升高)。研究多种病理过程的多标志物组合可能是一种最佳选择,但这需要前瞻性验证。未来需要开展研究以阐明目标利钠肽治疗反应的类型和程度,以及心力衰竭患者中利钠肽指导治疗的持续时间。