Objectives N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) predicts mortality and the development of heart failure in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Mid-regional proatrial natriuretic peptide (MR-proANP) is a stable by-product of production of atrial natriuretic peptide. We sought to compare the prognostic value of MR-proANP and NT-proBNP in HCM.
Methods We prospectively enrolled a cohort of patients with HCM from different European centres and followed them. All patients had clinical, ECG and echocardiographic evaluation and measurement of MR-proANP and NT-proBNP at inclusion.
Results Of 357 patients enrolled, the median age was 52 (IQR: 36–65) years. MR-proANP and NT-proBNP were both independently associated with age, weight, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), wall thickness and left atrial dimension. During a median follow-up of 23 months, 32 patients had a primary end point defined as death (n=6), heart transplantation (n=8), left ventricular assist device implantation (n=1) or heart failure hospitalisation (n=17). Both NT-proBNP and MR-proANP (p<10–4) were strongly associated with the primary endpoint, and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for both peptides were not significantly different. However, in a multiple stepwise regression analysis, the best model for predicting outcome was NYHA 1–2 vs 3–4 (HR=0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.77, p<0.01), LVEF (HR=0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98, p=0.0005) and MR-proANP (HR=3.77, 95% CI 2.01 to 7.08, p<0.0001).
Conclusions MR-proANP emerges as a valuable biomarker for the prediction of death and heart failure related events in patients with HCM.
- natriuretic peptide
- hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors CB: analysis, writing, statistics. SM: design, collection of data, review. DB: design, collection of data, review. CH: collection of data, data management, review. JGFC: collection of data, writing, review. EA: design, collection of data, review. EG: collection of data, review. TW: collection of data, review. AR: collection of data, review. J-LG: statistics, writing. MB: collection of data. OD: collection of data, review. MK: design, review. PC: design, collection of data, review. RI: design, collection of data, analysis, writing.
Funding This work was supported by Fondation Leducq, Ligue contre la Cardiomyopathie and Fédération Française de Cardiologie.
Competing interests RI has received research grant and honoraria for speaking, committees and advisory boards from Novartis, Servier, Bayer, Pfizer, Amgen. JGFC has received research grant and honoraria for speaking, committees and advisory boards from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, GSK, J&J, Medtronic, Myokardia, Novartis, Novartis, Philips, Pharmacosmos, PharmaNord, Sanofi, Servier, Stealth Biopharmaceuticals, Torrent Pharmaceuticals and Vifor. CH has received proctor fees, speaker honoraria and fees for advisory board from Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronic, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Pfizer, BMS, Daiichi-Sankyo and Bayer. MK has received honoraria, consultancy fees or speaker bureau fees from Novartis, Servier, MSD, BMS, Amgen, Sanofi, Novo Nordisk.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.