Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T00:53:28.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

N-terminal pro-B-type-natriuretic peptide as a screening tool for pulmonary hypertension in the paediatric population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2021

Soham Dasgupta*
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Erika Bettermann
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Michael Kelleman
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Usama Kanaan
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Ritu Sachdeva
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Christopher Petit
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Dennis Kim
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Robert Vincent
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Holly Bauser-Heaton
Affiliation:
Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Dr S. Dasgupta, MBBS, Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory University, 1405 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA. Tel: +1 404 256 2593. E-mail: dasguptasoham@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Although cardiac catheterisation (cath) is the diagnostic test for pulmonary hypertension, it is an invasive procedure. Echocardiography (echo) is commonly used for the non-invasive diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension but maybe limited by lack of adequate signals. Therefore, emphasis has been placed on biomarkers as a potential diagnostic tool. No prior paediatric studies have simultaneously compared N-terminal pro-B-type-natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) with cath/echo as a potential diagnostic tool. The aim of this study was to determine if NTproBNP was a reliable diagnostic tool for pulmonary hypertension in this population.

Methods:

Patients were divided into Study (echo evidence/established diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension undergoing cath) and Control (cath for small atrial septal defect/patent ductus arteriosus and endomyocardial biopsy post cardiac transplant) groups. NTproBNP, cath/echo data were obtained.

Results:

Thirty-one patients met inclusion criteria (10 Study, 21 Control). Median NTproBNP was significantly higher in the Study group. Echo parameters including transannular plane systolic excursion z scores, pulmonary artery acceleration time and right ventricular fractional area change were lower in the Study group and correlated negatively with NTproBNP. Receiver operation characteristic curve analysis demonstrated NTproBNP > 389 pg/ml was 87% specific for the diagnosis of pulmonary hypertension with the addition of pulmonary artery acceleration time improving the specificity.

Conclusions:

NTproBNP may be a valuable adjunctive diagnostic tool for pulmonary hypertension in the paediatric population. Echo measures of transannular plane systolic excursion z score, pulmonary artery acceleration time and right ventricular fractional area change had negative correlations with NTproBNP. The utility of NTproBNP as a screening tool for pulmonary hypertension requires validation in a population with unknown pulmonary hypertension status.

Information

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Study population demographics by control versus study group

Figure 1

Figure 1.

Figure 2

Figure 1.

Figure 3

Table 2. Echocardiogram parameters by control versus study group patients

Figure 4

Figure 2. (a) ROC analysis for NTproBNP values: study versus control group. (b) ROC analysis for NTproBNP values: study versus control group. The optimal NTproBNP value with highest sensitivity (0.60) & specificity (0.90) is 408 pg/ml.

Figure 5

Table 3. Cardiac catheterisation and echocardiogram parameters by NTproBNP levels (pg/ml).

Figure 6

Figure 3. (a) ROC analysis for NTproBNP values: PVRi <3 versus PVRi >3 by cardiac catheterisation (room air). (b) ROC Analysis for NTproBNP values: PVRi <3 versus PVRi >3 by cardiac catheterisation (room air). The optimal NTproBNP value with highest sensitivity (0.57) and specificity (0.80) is 408 pg/ml

Figure 7

Figure 4. (a) ROC analysis for NTproBNP values: mean pulmonary artery pressure <20 versus ≥20. (b) ROC Analysis for NTproBNP values: mean pulmonary artery pressure <20 versus ≥20. The optimal NTproBNP value with a sensitivity of 0.62 and specificity of 0.87 is 389 pg/ml

Figure 8

Figure 5. (a) ROC analysis for NTproBNP values: mean pulmonary artery pressure <20 versus ≥20 adjusted for pulmonary artery acceleration time. (b) ROC analysis for NTproBNP values: mean pulmonary artery pressure <20 versus ≥20 adjusted for pulmonary artery acceleration time. The NTproBNP value with a sensitivity of 0.69 and specificity of 0.93 is 389 pg/ml.

Figure 9

Figure 6. (a) Correlation between NTproBNP values and mean pulmonary artery pressure (room air). (b) Correlation between NTproBNP values and indexed pulmonary vascular resistance (room air).

Figure 10

Figure 7. (a) Correlation between NTproBNP values and echo measure of pulmonary artery acceleration time. (b) Correlation between NTproBNP values and echo measure of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion z score. (c) Correlation between NTproBNP values and echo measure of right ventricular fractional area change. (d) Correlation between NTproBNP values and echo measure of tissue doppler S’.

Figure 11

Table 4. Effect sizes for variables of interest