Natriuretic peptides to differentiate constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Carlos Diaz-Arocutipa, Jose Saucedo-Chinchay, Massimo Imazio, Edgar Argulian

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that natriuretic peptide levels are increased in patients with restrictive cardiomyopathy (RCM) but not in constrictive pericarditis (CP). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic utility of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) to differentiate CP and RCM. We searched electronic databases from inception to January 07, 2021. Studies involving adult patients that assessed the utility of natriuretic peptides to differentiate CP and RCM were included. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Seven studies (four case-control and three cohorts) involving 204 patients were included. The mean age ranged between 25.7 and 64.1 years and 77% of patients were men. BNP levels were significantly lower (standardized median difference [SMD], −1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.33 to −0.63) in patients with CP compared to RCM. The pooled area under the curve (AUC) of the BNP level was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70–0.92). NT-proBNP (SMD, −0.86; 95% CI, −1.38 to −0.33) and log NT-proBNP (SMD, −1.89; 95% CI, −2.59 to −1.20) levels were significantly lower in patients with CP compared to RCM. Our review shows that BNP and NT-proBNP levels were significantly lower in patients with CP compared to RCM. The pooled AUC of BNP level showed a good diagnostic accuracy to differentiate both conditions.

Original languageEnglish
JournalClinical Cardiology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2021

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Natriuretic peptides to differentiate constrictive pericarditis and restrictive cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this