MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of BNP and NT-proBNP in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction

2020· article· en· W3008481062 on OpenAlexaff
Rasmus Rørth, Pardeep S. Jhund, Mehmet Birhan Yılmaz, Søren Lund Kristensen, Paul Welsh, Akshay S. Desai, Lars Køber, Margaret F. Prescott, Jean L. Rouleau, Scott D. Solomon, Karl Swedberg, Michael R. Zile, Milton Packer, John J.V. McMurray

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersBritish Heart Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyNatriuretic peptide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Both BNP (B-type natriuretic peptide) and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide) are widely used to aid diagnosis, assess the effect of therapy, and predict outcomes in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. However, little is known about how these 2 peptides compare in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, especially with contemporary assays. Both peptides were measured at screening in the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Global Mortality and Morbidity in Heart Failure). Methods: Eligibility criteria in PARADIGM-HF included New York Heart Association functional class II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, and elevated natriuretic peptides: BNP ≥150 pg/mL or NT-proBNP ≥600 pg/mL (for patients with HF hospitalization within 12 months, BNP ≥100 pg/mL or NT-proBNP ≥400 pg/mL). BNP and NT-proBNP were measured simultaneously at screening and only patients who fulfilled entry criteria for both natriuretic peptides were included in the present analysis. The BNP/NT-proBNP criteria were not different for patients in atrial fibrillation. Estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min per 1.73 m 2 was a key exclusion criterion. Results: The median baseline concentration of NT-proBNP was 2067 (Q1, Q3: 1217–4003) and BNP 318 (Q1, Q3: 207–559), and the ratio, calculated from the raw data, was ≈6.25:1. This ratio varied considerably according to rhythm (atrial fibrillation 8.03:1; no atrial fibrillation 5.75:1) and with age, renal function, and body mass index but not with left ventricular ejection fraction. Each peptide was similarly predictive of death (all-cause, cardiovascular, sudden and pump failure) and heart failure hospitalization, for example, cardiovascular death: BNP hazard ratio, 1.41 (95% CI, 1.33–1.49) per 1 SD increase, P <0.0001; NT-proBNP, 1.45 (1.36–1.54); P <0.0001. Conclusions: The ratio of NT-proBNP to BNP in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction appears to be greater than generally appreciated, differs between patients with and without atrial fibrillation, and increases substantially with increasing age and decreasing renal function. These findings are important for comparison of natriuretic peptide concentrations in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations202
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207