Timing of BNP elevation

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

QuietFlight

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hey guys, recently had a case in the ED that led to the question of the timing of BNP elevation. Patient with history of CHF (EF 27%) presented with severely elevated BP and acute onset of dyspnea x 2 hours. Clinically, patient appeared to be in flash pulmonary edema. BNP came back at 133. Is anyone aware of the timing of elevation of BNP, specifically if it is possible for a patient to present acutely enough that BNP is not yet significantly elevated? I was unable to find anything on pubmed. Is it possible that a repeat BNP on this patient 12-24 hours later would be significantly elevated from original value? Any input is greatly appreciated.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Hey guys, recently had a case in the ED that led to the question of the timing of BNP elevation. Patient with history of CHF (EF 27%) presented with severely elevated BP and acute onset of dyspnea x 2 hours. Clinically, patient appeared to be in flash pulmonary edema. BNP came back at 133. Is anyone aware of the timing of elevation of BNP, specifically if it is possible for a patient to present acutely enough that BNP is not yet significantly elevated? I was unable to find anything on pubmed. Is it possible that a repeat BNP on this patient 12-24 hours later would be significantly elevated from original value? Any input is greatly appreciated.

The BNP is irrelevant. You treat the patient, not the number...especially one as wonky as a BNP. I've seen people with rales you can hear across the room with BNPs of 150 and folks with 2+ edema to the mid-shin and BNPs of 20K.

This paper might be helpful...it's from CCF.

Plasma B-type natriuretic peptide levels in ambulatory patients with established chronic symptomatic systolic heart failure.
Tang WH, Girod JP, Lee MJ, Starling RC, Young JB, Van Lente F, Francis GS
Circulation. 2003;108(24):2964.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic and prognostic values of plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) testing are established. However, the range of plasma BNP levels present in the setting of chronic, stable systolic heart failure (HF) is unclear.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We followed up 558 consecutive ambulatory patients with chronic, stable systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction<50%) treated at a specialized outpatient HF clinic between November 2001 and February 2003. Retrospective chart review was performed to determine clinical and functional data at the time of BNP testing (Biosite Triage). The clinical characteristics of patients with plasma BNP levels<100 pg/mL and those with>or =100 pg/mL were compared. In our cohort, 60 patients were considered asymptomatic, and their plasma BNP levels ranged from 5 to 572 pg/mL (median, 147 pg/mL). Of the remaining 498 symptomatic (NYHA functional class II-III) patients, 106 (21.3%) had plasma BNP levels in the "normal" diagnostic range (<100 pg/mL). Patients in this "normal BNP" subgroup were more likely to be younger, to be female, to have nonischemic pathogenesis, and to have better-preserved cardiac and renal function and less likely to have atrial fibrillation.
CONCLUSIONS: In the ambulatory care setting, both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with chronic, stable systolic HF may present with a wide range of plasma BNP levels. In a subset of symptomatic patients (up to 21% in our cohort), plasma BNP levels are below what would be considered "diagnostic" (<100 pg/mL).

The answer to your question is "maybe, probably, but it doesn't matter."
 
Agree with the above 100%.
Just got off rotation with a CHF specialist and she almost never orders BNP's.
Lately we've seen a rash of BNP ordering in our ER as part of their "pan lab workup" along with troponin, CBC, chem panel, etc. BNP is not highly sensitive or specific for a CHF exacerbation. Things other than a CHF exacerbation can make it high...renal failure, atrial fibrillation, etc. What is more important is to be able to clinically examine a patient and determine the volume status.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I also agree that BNP is unhelpful. Our ED orders them like candy as well. . .with no diagnostic benefit.

CHF is. . .a clinical diagnosis. We don't order them either.
 
I also agree that BNP is unhelpful. Our ED orders them like candy as well. . .with no diagnostic benefit.

CHF is. . .a clinical diagnosis. We don't order them either.

I don't think that a BNP is always unhelpful. But in a person with a known EF of <30% with symptomatic pulmonary edema/failure sxs (like this case), it's irrelevant.

It can be useful in those undifferentiated cases of dyspnea w/o known heart failure. But yes, they're the new Tn for anybody presenting to the ED w/ any cardiac/respiratory sxs (and to be fair, are often ordered by the triage RN before the docs get to them).

My favorite though is the FM interns on the ICU service who always want to trend the BNP during admission.
 
Agree with the above 100%.
Just got off rotation with a CHF specialist and she almost never orders BNP's.
Lately we've seen a rash of BNP ordering in our ER as part of their "pan lab workup" along with troponin, CBC, chem panel, etc. BNP is not highly sensitive or specific for a CHF exacerbation. Things other than a CHF exacerbation can make it high...renal failure, atrial fibrillation, etc. What is more important is to be able to clinically examine a patient and determine the volume status.

Incorrect: BNP is highly sensitive with a great negative predictive value (>95%). Very useful for ruling out CHF as a cause for dyspnea. Agree that specificity is not as great (though not horrible in mid 70s), and clinical exam is more useful.

In my opinion, best use is for triage in ED. Can also be helpful for prognosis at hospital discharge.

p diddy
 
Top