4.5 Article

N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide Predicts the Burden of Pulmonary Embolism

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 337, 期 2, 页码 88-92

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e318182d33e

关键词

Brain natriuretic peptides; Venous thromboembolic disease; Acute pulmonary embolism; Risk stratification; Burden of pulmonary embolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In acute pulmonary embolism (PE), brain natriuretic peptides are markers of right ventricular dysfunction and they could point out the size of the occluded pulmonary vessel. Method : N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) was measured in 93 consecutive outpatients diagnosed with acute PE by means of helical computed tomography. Central PE was diagnosed when thrombotic material was seen in the main trunk or right or left main branches of the pulmonary artery, and peripheral PE was diagnosed when thrombi were seen exclusively in segmental or subsegmental arteries. Results: Central PE occurred in 51 (55%) patients and peripheral PE in 42 (45%). Plasma level of pro-BNP greater than 500 ng/L was independently associated with central PE. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.753 (CI 95% 0.7000.806), sensitivity 0.82 (CI 95% 0.69-0.91), specificity 0.67 (CI 95% 0.50-0.79), positive predictive value 0.75 (CI 95% 0.61-0.85), and negative predictive value 0.76 (CI 95% 0.58-0.87). Six (6%) patients died, 3 from PE, 2 from brain hemorrhage, and 1 from advanced gallbladder cancer. N-terminal pro-BNP level was greater than 500 ng/L in all patients who died. The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for death was 0.712 (CI 95% 0.635-0.789), sensitivity 0.10 (CI 95% 0.04-0.22), specificity 1 (CI 95% 0.88-1) positive predictive value 1 (CI 95% 0.51-1), and negative predictive value 0.42 (CI 95% 0.32-0.53). Conclusions: Preliminary data suggest that N-terminal pro-BNP levels higher than 500 ng/L could serve as indicator of the burden of PE and perhaps as a predictor of death.

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

4.5
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