Observational studyOpen heart2026
Natriuretic peptide responses to exercise in HFpEF diagnosis: a pilot study.
Observational study in Open heart, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can be challenging because natriuretic peptide (NP) plasma levels and diastolic function parameters during rest echocardiography may be normal or marginally abnormal in patients displaying exercise-induced symptoms suggestive of HF. In these patients exercise echocardiography is recommended.We wanted to assess whether directly measured NP levels post-exercise had added diagnostic value beyond rest plasma N-terminal pro-brain NP (NT-proBNP) levels for diagnosing HFpEF.
methodsParticipants with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD), who could not be classified as HFpEF by a panel of experts more than 4 years ago, were prospectively enrolled in the HELPFulUP observational study from August 2021 to October 2022. All participants in the HELPFulUP study underwent clinical assessment, rest and exercise-echocardiography and measurements of plasma NT-proBNP before and directly after exercise. An expert panel, blinded to exercise NT-proBNP results, but with knowledge of signs, symptoms and all other diagnostic parameters including baseline values of NT-proBNP adjudicated HFpEF status. We calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve (AUC)) for HFpEF for rest and post-exercise NT-proBNP levels and the delta NT-proBNP.
resultsOf the 112 LVDD participants (59 women), 11 were diagnosed with HFpEF by the expert panel based on the additional information retrieved from exercise echocardiography, and 101 remained classified as LVDD. Rest (AUC=0.78 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.90) and exercise values of NT-proBNP (AUC=0.77 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.90) had similar discriminatory value. The delta NT-proBNP AUC was 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.75).
conclusionsIn this pilot study, the diagnostic performance of the change with exercise in NP levels to detect incident HFpEF, beyond measurements in rest, did not point to a strong diagnostic value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.