Brain-Type Natriuretic Peptide in the Diagnosis and Management of Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor.—We read with great interest “Brain-Type Natriuretic Peptide in the Diagnosis and Management of Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn” by Reynolds et al.1 The authors suggest the blood level of brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) as a marker that can be used as an adjunct parameter to differentiate newborns with persistent pulmonary hypertension from other noncardiac causes of respiratory distress. This information might be particularly useful in deciding appropriate treatment and planning early transfer to centers with echocardiographic facilities. Although hypothesized in their discussion, the study by Reynolds et al did not investigate if cardiac anomalies resulting in ventricular stress in neonates might also induce elevated blood levels of BNP. It is worth clarifying this aspect, because these patients could require a different therapeutic approach than infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension.It is interesting to note that we currently are performing a clinical study aimed at assessing the clinical value of BNP measurements in newborns with congenital heart disease that results in pressure overload to the right ventricle. In this setting, we already studied 7 newborns that required catheterization with therapeutic purpose (1 with pulmonary atresia with intact ventricular septum and 6 with critical pulmonary stenosis). None of them had other morphologic or chromosomal anomalies. All the newborns revealed echocardiographic signs of right ventricular pressure overload, with significant tricuspid regurgitation, right-to-left interauricular shunting, and high estimated right ventricular pressure/mean blood pressure ratio (>2:3). Measurement of BNP level was performed in venous blood samples collected from femoral vein before contrast injection. None of these newborns were submitted to cardiac catheterization without a clinical purpose, and no additional blood was required. In this preliminary study, we found a significantly high value of BNP (>2500 pg/mL) in all patients. Additionally, we found a positive and significant correlation between BNP levels and systolic right ventricular pressure (r = 0.81; P < .05) as well as to the mean right ventricular pressure (r = 0.77; P < .05).In conclusion, our preliminary results confirm the suspicion from Reynolds et al that cardiac anomalies such as pulmonary stenosis/atresia might also result in elevated blood levels of BNP, which correlated with right ventricular pressures. We believe, therefore, that the blood level of BNP reflects ventricular stress, and its elevation should be a criterion for prompt additional evaluation but not necessarily an indication for beginning any specific therapy directed at persistent pulmonary hypertension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".