Elevated N-terminal Pro-Brain-type Natriuretic Peptide at Admission is Associated with Unfavorable Outcomes after Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

Cheng Wang,Bin Wang,Sheng Liu,Guang-Dong Lu,Hai-Bin Shi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2022.09.016
IF: 2.116
2022-01-01
Journal of Clinical Neuroscience
Abstract:Cardiac injury and dysfunction following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) negatively impact the neurological outcomes. This study aimed to determine the association between N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro BNP) levels at admission and neurological outcomes at six months in aSAH pa-tients following endovascular treatment. Patients diagnosed with aSAH who underwent NT-pro BNP measure-ment at admission at our department between January 2018 and April 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Neurological outcomes were evaluated based on the six-month modified Rankin Scale score. The associations between admission NT-pro BNP levels and neurological outcomes were investigated. In total, 471 patients were included in the analysis. The serum NT-pro BNP levels were significantly lower in patients with a favorable outcome than those with an unfavorable outcome. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of NT-pro BNP was 0.687. The optimal cutoff value of serum NT-pro BNP level as a predictor of unfa-vorable outcome was 253.4 pg/mL. Multivariate analysis revealed that admission NT-pro BNP level of >253.4 pg/mL was significantly associated with unfavorable outcomes. After propensity score-matching, admission NT -pro BNP level of >253.4 pg/mL was an independent predictor of unfavorable outcomes. Admission NT-pro BNP level added a slight value to other clinical variables for the prediction of unfavorable outcomes (0.877 vs 0.871 in AUC, respectively; p = 0.084). In conclusion, higher admission NT-pro BNP levels were independently associated with six-month unfavorable outcomes in aSAH patients treated with endovascular treatment. However, it added only minor prognostic value to clinical information alone.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?