Saratov JOURNAL of Medical and Scientific Research

brain natriuretic peptide

Prognostic value of level of brain natriuretic peptide in patients with acute coronary syndrome without symptoms of heart failure

Year: 2017, volume 13 Issue: №1 Pages: 041-046
Heading: Internal Diseases Article type: Original article
Authors: Furman N.V., Puchinyan N.F., Dolotovskaya P.V., Dovgalevsky la.P., Panina A.V.
Organization: Saratov Institute of Cardiology, Russia
Summary:

Purpose of the study: to evaluate the prognostic value of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) as a predictor of cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within one year after hospitalization. Material and Methods. The study included 201 patients, including 150 men and 51 women, who were treated in the emergency department of cardiology with ACS including 96 patients without symptoms of CHF and/or AHF. Results. All patients were divided into groups depending on the presence signs of heart failure of CHF and/or AHF at the time of admission: patients with no signs of heart failure were divided into 2 groups: those with BNP levels >101 pg/mL (group 1; n=37) and <100 pg/mL (group 2; n=59); the third group consisted of patients with symptomatic HF (n=105). In patients without clinical signs of CHF and/or AHF with elevated level of the BNP at the time of hospitalization was observed significantly increased risk of unstable angina during the year compared to patients with normal levels (OR 2.83 [95% Cl: 1.1—7.24], p=0.04). In patients without clinical signs of CHF and/or AHF with elevated BNP levels at the time of hospitalization compared to patients with AHF and/or CHF, had no statistically significant differences in the long-term prognosis. Conclusion. Patients with ACS in the absence of CHF and/or AHF but with elevated levels of BNP at admission should be attributed to the group of high risk for cardiovascular complications. Increasing the level of BNP in ACS patients at admission has an adverse value for long-term outcome and can be used as an additional risk marker.

AttachmentSize
2017_01_041-046.pdf291.86 KB