4.1 Article

Neurohormonal profile of patients with heart failure and diabetes

期刊

NETHERLANDS HEART JOURNAL
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 190-196

出版社

BOHN STAFLEU VAN LOGHUM BV
DOI: 10.1007/BF03091760

关键词

Heart Failure; Neurotransmitter Agents; Diabetes Mellitus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Neurohormonal activation is generally recognised to play an important role in the pathophysiology, prognosis and treatment of chronic heart failure (HF). While the number of patients with diabetes increases, little if anything is known about neurohormonal activation in HF patients with diabetes. Methods. The study population consisted of 371 patients with advanced HF who were enrolled in a multicentre survival trial. Ten different plasma neurohormones were measured (noradrenaline, adrenaline, dopamine, aldosterone, renin, endothelin, atrial natriuretic peptide [ANP], N-terminal (pro)ANP, brain natriuretic peptide [BNP] and N-terminal (pro)BNP. Comparisons were made between patients with diabetes (n=81) and those without (n=290). Results. At baseline, the two groups were comparable regarding age (mean 68 years), left ventricular ejection fraction (23%), severity and aetiology of HF, while body weight was higher in those with diabetes (77.4 vs. 74.2 kg, p=0.04). Most plasma neurohormones were similar between groups, but patients with diabetes had higher values of BNP (94 vs. 47 pmol/l, p=0.03), while a similar trend was observed for N-terminal (pro)BNP (750 vs. 554 pmol/l, p=0.10). During almost five years of follow-up, 51/81 patients with diabetes died (63%), as compared with 144 of 290 non-diabetic patients (50%) who died (p=0.046). Natriuretic peptides and noradrenaline were the most powerful predictors of mortality in both diabetic and non-diabetic HF patients. Conclusion. HF patients with diabetes have higher (N-terminal (pro)) BNP levels than nondiabetic patients, while other neurohormones are generally similar. Natriuretic peptides are also good prognostic markers in diabetic HF patients. (Neth Heart J 2010;18:190-6.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据