Natriuretic peptide vs. clinical information for diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in primary care

2008 | journal article; research paper. A publication with affiliation to the University of Göttingen.

Jump to: Cite & Linked | Documents & Media | Details | Version history

Cite this publication

​Natriuretic peptide vs. clinical information for diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in primary care​
Koschack, J. ; Scherer, M.; Luers, C.; Kochen, M. M. ; Wetzel, D.; Kleta, S. & Pouwels, C. et al.​ (2008) 
BMC Family Practice9 art. 14​.​ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-9-14 

Documents & Media

1471-2296-9-14_Koschack.pdf350.83 kBAdobe PDF

License

Published Version

Special user license Goescholar License

Details

Authors
Koschack, Janka ; Scherer, Martin; Luers, Claus; Kochen, Michael M. ; Wetzel, Dirk; Kleta, Sibylle; Pouwels, Claudia; Wachter, R. Rolf; Herrmann-Lingen, Christoph; Pieske, Burkert M.; Binder, Lutz
Abstract
Background: Screening of primary care patients at risk for left ventricular systolic dysfunction by a simple blood-test might reduce referral rates for echocardiography. Whether or not natriuretic peptide testing is a useful and cost-effective diagnostic instrument in primary care settings, however, is still a matter of debate. Methods: N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, clinical information, and echocardiographic data of left ventricular systolic function were collected in 542 family practice patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. We determined the diagnostic power of the NT-proBNP assessment in ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction and compared it to a risk score derived from a logistic regression model of easily acquired clinical information. Results: 23 of 542 patients showed left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Both NT-proBNP and the clinical risk score consisting of dyspnea at exertion and ankle swelling, coronary artery disease and diuretic treatment showed excellent diagnostic power for ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction. AUC of NT-proBNP was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92) with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.50). AUC of the clinical risk score was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.91) with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.67). 148 misclassifications using NT-proBNP and 55 using the clinical risk score revealed a significant difference (McNemar test; p < 0.001) that was based on the higher specificity of the clinical risk score. Conclusion: The evaluation of clinical information is at least as effective as NT-proBNP testing in ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction in family practice patients at risk. If these results are confirmed in larger cohorts and in different samples, family physicians should be encouraged to rely on the diagnostic power of the clinical information from their patients.
Issue Date
2008
Journal
BMC Family Practice 
Organization
Institut für Allgemeinmedizin 
ISSN
1471-2296

Reference

Citations


Social Media