A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Prognostic value of sST2 and NT-proBNP at admission in heart failure with preserved, mid-ranged and reduced ejection fraction. | LitMetric

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare sST2 at admission with N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in prognostic accuracy among different types of heart failure (HF) and clarifying the enhanced prognostic value in patients with HF by the combination of the two biomarkers.

Methods And Results: A total of 164 consecutive patients admitted to our institution for HF were divided into three groups of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Circulating sST2 and NT-proBNP were measured using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The sST2 level was only significantly higher in HFrEF when compared with HFpEF. At ROC analysis to one-year adverse events, only sST2 showed predictive value in HFmrEF with an optimal cut-off value of 147.66 ng/ml (AUC 0.697, p = .045, sensitivity 75%, specificity 75.8%), while both NT-proBNP and sST2 showed a significant predictive value in HFpEF (p = .036 vs .042; AUC 0.683, sensitivity 71.4%, specificity 55.6%; AUC 0.677, sensitivity 64.3%, specificity 83.3%) with an optimal cut-off value of 1054.50 pg/ml and 117.80 ng/ml. Multivariate regression analysis suggested that sST2 and NT-proBNP could be biomarkers for predicting 1-year adverse events of HF (OR = 4.384, 95% CI = 1.661-11.570 vs. OR = 3.451, 95% CI = 1.254-9.497). Adverse events occurred frequently within one year both in sST2 and in NT-proBNP above the median.

Conclusions: sST2 can provide different prognostic information in distinct types of HF, and even be superior to NT-proBNP. sST2 combined with NT-proBNP can improve predicting accuracy.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00015385.2017.1325617DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sst2 nt-probnp
16
ejection fraction
16
adverse events
12
sst2
9
nt-probnp
8
heart failure
8
reduced ejection
8
sst2 predictive
8
optimal cut-off
8
nt-probnp sst2
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!