• Martin Hülsmann, Rudolf Berger, Deddo Mörtl, Odette Gore, Brigitte Meyer, and Richard Pacher.
• Department of Cardiology, University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. martin.huelsmann@meduniwien.ac.at
• Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2005 Jun 1; 7 (4): 552-6.

AimsN-ANP, N-BNP and BNP are proven to be excellent markers for diagnosis and the prediction of outcome in heart failure patients. Published studies on this subject differ in respect of their design and are therefore difficult to compare. The EuroHeart Failure Survey was undertaken to evaluate the drug prescription rate; the cohort of this survey best reflects clinical practice. The purpose of the present study was to compare the three hormones in clinical practice for the purpose of diagnosis and the prediction of outcome. Attention was focused on patients with normal values and the implications of these on survival.Methods And ResultsOf 341 patients recruited in the Austrian centers of the survey, blood samples for the determination of N-ANP, N-BNP and BNP were taken from 112 patients. Mortality within the observation period was defined as the endpoint. Normal levels of the hormones were found in 5% of cases for N-ANP, 25% for N-BNP and 30% for BNP. The mortality of patients with normal values was low (0%, 3% and 6%, respectively) and occurred late (after more than 23 months). Above-median levels of all three hormones resulted in a comparable mortality (51% survival for N-ANP, 50% for BNP and 49% for N-BNP).ConclusionsIn a clinical setting, the risk stratification for outcome is similar for N-ANP, N-BNP and BNP. More importantly, all hormones are reliable parameters to diagnose CHF using normal values as a cut-point. However, N-ANP appears to be more sensitive than BNP or N-BNP.

17 keywords...

hide…