Nesiritide: Harmful or Harmless?

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/90328/1/phco.26.10.1465.pd

Cardiac Dysfunction, Congestion and Loop Diuretics: their Relationship to Prognosis in Heart Failure

Background: Diuretics are the mainstay of treatment for congestion but concerns exist that they adversely affect prognosis. We explored whether the relationship between loop diuretic use and outcome is explained by the underlying severity of congestion amongst patients referred with suspected heart failure. Method and Results: Of 1190 patients, 712 had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤50 %, 267 had LVEF >50 % with raised plasma NTproBNP (>400 ng/L) and 211 had LVEF >50 % with NTproBNP ≤400 ng/L; respectively, 72 %, 68 % and 37 % of these groups were treated with loop diuretics including 28 %, 29 % and 10 % in doses ≥80 mg furosemide equivalent/day. Compared to patients with cardiac dysfunction (either LVEF ≤50 % or NT-proBNP >400 ng/L) but not taking a loop diuretic, those taking a loop diuretic were older and had more clinical evidence of congestion, renal dysfunction, anaemia and hyponatraemia. During a median follow-up of 934 (IQR: 513–1425) days, 450 patients were hospitalized for HF or died. Patients prescribed loop diuretics had a worse outcome. However, in multi-variable models, clinical, echocardiographic (inferior vena cava diameter), and biochemical (NTproBNP) measures of congestion were strongly associated with an adverse outcome but not the use, or dose, of loop diuretics. Conclusions: Prescription of loop diuretics identifies patients with more advanced features of heart failure and congestion, which may account for their worse prognosis. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship between loop diuretic agents and outcome; imaging and biochemical measures of congestion might be better guides to diuretic dose than symptoms or clinical signs

The utility of B-type natriuretic peptide in the diagnosis of heart failure in the emergency department: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Dyspnea is a common chief complaint in the emergency department (ED); differentiating heart failure (HF) from other causes can be challenging. Brain Natriuretic Peptide (BNP) is a new diagnostic test for HF for use in dyspneic patients in the ED. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the accuracy of BNP in the emergency diagnosis of HF.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched MEDLINE (1975–2005) supplemented by reference tracking. We included studies that reported the sensitivity and specificity of BNP for diagnosing HF in ED patients with acute dyspnea. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality. We pooled sensitivities and specificities within five ranges of BNP cutoffs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ten studies including 3,344 participants met inclusion criteria. Quality was variable; possible verification or selection bias was common. No studies eliminated patients with obvious medical causes of dyspnea. Most studies used the Triage BNP assay; all utilized a clinical reference standard. Pooled sensitivity and specificity at a BNP cutoff of 100–105 pg/ml were 90% and 74% with negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.14; pooled sensitivity was 81% with specificity of 90% at cutoffs between 300 and 400 pg/ml with positive LR of 7.6.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our analysis suggests that BNP has moderate accuracy in detecting HF in the ED. Our results suggest utilizing a BNP of less than 100 pg/ml to rule out HF and a BNP of greater than 400 pg/ml to diagnose HF. Many studies were of marginal quality, and all included patients with varying degrees of diagnostic uncertainty. Further studies focusing on patients with diagnostic uncertainty will clarify the real-world utility of BNP in the emergency management of dyspnea.</p