Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25257704›Full record

ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2014

Utility of NT-proBNP as a rule-out test for left ventricular dysfunction in very old people with limiting dyspnoea: the Newcastle 85+ Study.

Joanna Collerton, Andrew Kingston, Fahad Yousaf, Karen Davies, Antoinette Kenny, Dermot Neely, Carmen Martin-Ruiz, Guy MacGowan, Louise Robinson, Thomas B L Kirkwood and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Diagnostic approach to chronic dyspnoea in adults.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019
    Review
  4. ADMA and NT pro-BNP are associated with overall mortality in elderly.European journal of clinical investigation · 2019
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide in coronary artery disease.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Joanna CollertonInstitute for Ageing and Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. joanna.collerton@ncl.ac.uk.
Andrew Kingston
Fahad Yousaf
Karen Davies
Antoinette Kenny
Dermot Neely
Carmen Martin-Ruiz
Guy MacGowan
Louise Robinson
Thomas B L Kirkwood
Bernard Keavney
Newcastle Hospitals - Campus for Ageing and Vitality · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilBritish Heart Foundation FS/12/55/29695British Heart Foundation PG/08/026/24712Medical Research Council G0500997Medical Research Council MR/J50001X/1The Dunhill Medical Trust R124/0509
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines advocate using B-type natriuretic peptides in the diagnostic work-up of suspected heart failure (HF). Their main role is to limit echocardiography rates by ruling out HF/LV dysfunction where peptide level is low. Recommended rule-out cut points vary between guidelines. The utility of B-type natriuretic peptides in the very old (85+) requires further investigation, with optimal cut points yet to be established. We examined NT-proBNP's utility, alone and in combination with history of myocardial infarction (MI), as a rule-out test for LV dysfunction in very old people with limiting dyspnoea.

methods

designCross-sectional analysis.

settingPopulation-based sample; North-East England.

participants155 people (aged 87-89) with limiting dyspnoea. MEASURES: Dyspnoea assessed by questionnaire. Domiciliary echocardiography performed; LV systolic/diastolic function graded. NT-proBNP measured (Roche Diagnostics). Receiver operating characteristic analyses examined NT-proBNP's diagnostic accuracy for LV dysfunction.

resultsAUC for LVEF less than or equal to 50% was poor (0.58, 95% CI 0.49-0.65), but good for LVEF less than or equal to 40% (0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.86). At ESC cut point (125 ng/l), few cases of systolic dysfunction were missed (NPV 94-100%, depending on severity), but echocardiography (88%) and false positive rates (56-81 per 100 screened) were high. At NICE cut point (400 ng/l), echocardiography (51%) and false positive rates (33-45) were lower; exclusionary performance was good for LVEF less than or equal to 40% (1 case missed per 100 screened, 15% of cases; NPV 97%), but poor for LVEF less than or equal to 50% (16 cases missed per 100 screened, 45% of cases; NPV 68%). Incorporating isolated moderate/severe diastolic dysfunction into target condition increased the proportion of cases missed (lower NPV), whilst improving case detection. Incorporating MI history as an additional referral prompt slightly reduced the number of cases missed at expense of higher echocardiography and false positive rates.

conclusionsHigh echocardiography rates and poor exclusionary performance for mild degrees of systolic dysfunction and for diastolic dysfunction limit NT-proBNP's utility as a rule-out test for LV dysfunction in very old people with limiting dyspnoea. Incorporating MI history as an additional echocardiography prompt yields no overall benefit compared to using NT-proBNP level alone.

Indexed as

Ventricular Function, LeftAged, 80 and overAge FactorsArea Under CurveBiomarkersCross-Sectional StudiesDyspneaEchocardiographyEnglandFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMyocardial InfarctionNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPeptide FragmentsBiomarkersNatriuretic Peptide, BrainPeptide Fragmentspro-brain natriuretic peptide (1-76)

Identifiers

PMID25257704
PMCPMC4189162
OpenAlexW2135936204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.