4.7 Article

Brain natriuretic peptide as a predictor of delayed atrial fibrillation after ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 326-331

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2009.02813.x

关键词

atrial fibrillation; biomarkers; brain natriuretic peptide; embolism; ischaemic stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: We investigated whether the brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level can serve as a predictive biological marker of delayed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Two hundred and thirty seven consecutive patients admitted to our institution with acute ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within 24 h of onset were enrolled. The patients were classified according to the presence or absence of AF upon admission [ AF and sinus rhythm (SR) groups]. The SR group was subdivided based on the development of AF after admission (new- and non-AF groups). We compared the characteristics between the AF and SR groups, and between the new- and non-AF groups. The factors associated with new- AF were investigated by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Amongst the enrolled patients, 72 (30.4%) had AF upon admission ( AF group), and 13 (5.5%) developed AF thereafter ( new- AF group). The plasma BNP level was significantly higher in the AF, than in the SR group (401.7 vs. 92.1 pg/ml, P < 0.001). Moreover, the plasma BNP level was significantly higher in the new-, than in the non-AF group (184.7 vs. 84.1 pg/ml, P < 0.001). The optimal cutoff BNP level required to distinguish new-, from non-AF groups was 85.0 pg/ml, and the sensitivity and specificity was 83.3% and 76.2%, respectively. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, plasma BNP level > 85.0 pg/ml ( odds ratio, 7.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.71 to 30.43, P = 0.007) was an independent factor associated with new- AF. Conclusion: High plasma BNP level should be a strong predictor of delayed AF after ischaemic stroke or TIA.

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

4.7
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