Assessing Congestion in HF:
Natriuretic Peptides
Michael Felker, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA
Professor of Medicine
Chief, Heart Failure Section
Duke University School of Medicine
Vicious Cycle of Congestion in AHF
Worsening
heart
failure
Elevated
LVEDP
Increased
wall stress
Myocardial
Oxygen
demand
Myocardial
ischemia
Increased functional MR
CONGESTION
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.”
Voltaire
Congestion
• All agree that it is important
• All agree that addressing it is key to success
• What is it exactly?
– Clinical congestion (rales, JVP, edema)?
– Hemodynamic congestion (elevated filling pressures)?
– Something else (fluid loss, body weight change, NP’s)?
Pharmacologic Actions of hBNP
Hemodynamic
(balanced vasodilation)
veins
arteries
coronary arteries
Neurohumoral
aldosterone
endothelin
norepinephrine
Renal
diuresis
natriuresis
GFR
D
R I
M
K
R
G
S S
S
S
G
L
G
F
C CS S
G
SGQVM
K V L R
R
H
KPS
Cardiac
lusitropic
antifibrotic
anti-remodeling
BNP Correlates (Loosely) with LV Filling Pressures
Kazanegra J, Cardiac Failure 2001
PAW(mmHg)
Hours
BNP(pg/ml)
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
baseline4 8 12 16 20 24
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
PAW
BNP
*Pulmonary artery wedge.
BNP Reflects Ventricular Wall Stress
Iwananga, JACC
Natriuretic Peptides Represent a “Myocyte
Level” View of Congestion
Help!
Maisel AS et al. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:161-167.
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
1-Specificity
Sensitivity
Final Diagnosis
Heart Failure
Final Diagnosis
NOT Heart Failure
BNP 100 pg/mL
“Test positive”
673 227
BNP <100 pg/mL
“Test negative”
71
Sensitivity
=90%
615
Specificity
=73%
Positive
predictive
value=75%
Negative
predictive
value=90%
BNP=50 pg/mL
BNP=80 pg/mL
BNP=100 pg/mL
BNP=150 pg/mL
BNP=125 pg/mL
Natriuretic Peptides for Diagnosis
Optimal cut-off point determined @ 100 pg/mL
Maisel AS et al. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:161-167.
Natriuretic Peptides and Prognosis in Chronic HF:
Data from Val-HeFT
Anand, I. et al, Circ 2003
Predischarge BNP Is Strong Predictor of Post-
Discharge Events
0
25
50
75
100
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
DeathorReadmission,%
Follow-up, Days
Hazard Ratios
15.2
5.1
1
p<.0001
p<.0001
BNP >700 ng/L*
(n = 41, events = 38)
BNP 350-700 ng/L*
(n = 50, events = 30)
BNP <350 ng/L*
(n = 111, events = 18)
Logeart D, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:635-641.
Change in NTproBNP and Outcomes
Masson, JACC 2008
Kociol R et al, Circ HF 2013
Biomarker Guided Therapy and All-Cause Mortality:
Meta-Analysis
Combined
BATTLESCARRED
STARS-BNP
STARBRITE
Troughton
TIME-CHF
PRIMA
Felker GM. Am Heart J 2009
N = 1627
Adjusted HR = 0.69 (0.55-0.86)
High Risk Systolic HF Patient
LVEF ≤ 40 within 12 months
HF event within 12 mos (HF hosp, ER visit, or outpt IV diuretic)
NTproBNP > 2000 pg/mL within last 30 days
Usual Care
N= 550
Primary endpoint: Time to CV death or first HF hospitalization
Secondary Endpoints: All-cause mortality
Total days alive and out of hospital during follow-up
CV mortality or CV hospitalization
Safety
Health related quality of life
Resource utilization, costs, cost-effectiveness
Biomarker Guided
NTproBNP < 1000 pg/mL
N=550
Follow up: 2 wks, 6 wks, 3 months, then Q3 month for 12-24 mos
Screening
Randomization
Follow-up
Endpoints
Additional 2 week follow up after changes in therapy
Ambulatory/Outpatient
In ambulatory patients with dyspnea, measurement of
BNP or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-
proBNP) is useful to support clinical decision making
regarding the diagnosis of HF, especially in the setting of
clinical uncertainty.
Measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP is useful for
establishing prognosis or disease severity in chronic HF.
I IIa IIb III
I IIa IIb III
Hospitalized/Acute
Measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP is useful to support
clinical judgment for the diagnosis of acutely
decompensated HF, especially in the setting of
uncertainty for the diagnosis.
Measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP and/or cardiac
troponin is useful for establishing prognosis or disease
severity in acutely decompensated HF.
I IIa IIb III
I IIa IIb III
Advantages of Natriuretic Peptides as
Measures of Congestion
• Quantitative
• Reproducible across time and across providers
• Does not require high level of expertise
• Non-invasive
• Cheap (relatively)
• Supported by guidelines with highest level of
recommendation
Biomarkers Always Augment Clinical Judgment
• Impacted by
– Age
– Gender
– Renal function
– Atrial fibrillation
– Obesity
– HFpEF vs. HFrEF
Greater Decongestion = Better Outcomes
Kociol et al, Circ HF 2013
• Drop in NT-
proBNP
• Change in
weight
• Net fluid loss
Conclusions
• Natriuretic peptides represent a quantitative,
reproducible assessment of myocyte wall stress
– Best marker for making diagnosis of HF
– Correlate with symptoms
– Correlate with outcomes
– Change with favorable change in clinical course
– Failure to improve with treatment identifies very high risk
patients
– ? Potential target for adjusting therapy

Assessing Congestion in HF : Natriuretic Peptides

  • 1.
    Assessing Congestion inHF: Natriuretic Peptides Michael Felker, MD, MHS, FACC, FAHA Professor of Medicine Chief, Heart Failure Section Duke University School of Medicine
  • 2.
    Vicious Cycle ofCongestion in AHF Worsening heart failure Elevated LVEDP Increased wall stress Myocardial Oxygen demand Myocardial ischemia Increased functional MR CONGESTION
  • 3.
    “If you wishto converse with me, define your terms.” Voltaire
  • 4.
    Congestion • All agreethat it is important • All agree that addressing it is key to success • What is it exactly? – Clinical congestion (rales, JVP, edema)? – Hemodynamic congestion (elevated filling pressures)? – Something else (fluid loss, body weight change, NP’s)?
  • 5.
    Pharmacologic Actions ofhBNP Hemodynamic (balanced vasodilation) veins arteries coronary arteries Neurohumoral aldosterone endothelin norepinephrine Renal diuresis natriuresis GFR D R I M K R G S S S S G L G F C CS S G SGQVM K V L R R H KPS Cardiac lusitropic antifibrotic anti-remodeling
  • 6.
    BNP Correlates (Loosely)with LV Filling Pressures Kazanegra J, Cardiac Failure 2001 PAW(mmHg) Hours BNP(pg/ml) 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 baseline4 8 12 16 20 24 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 PAW BNP *Pulmonary artery wedge.
  • 7.
    BNP Reflects VentricularWall Stress Iwananga, JACC
  • 8.
    Natriuretic Peptides Representa “Myocyte Level” View of Congestion Help!
  • 9.
    Maisel AS etal. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:161-167. 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1-Specificity Sensitivity Final Diagnosis Heart Failure Final Diagnosis NOT Heart Failure BNP 100 pg/mL “Test positive” 673 227 BNP <100 pg/mL “Test negative” 71 Sensitivity =90% 615 Specificity =73% Positive predictive value=75% Negative predictive value=90% BNP=50 pg/mL BNP=80 pg/mL BNP=100 pg/mL BNP=150 pg/mL BNP=125 pg/mL Natriuretic Peptides for Diagnosis Optimal cut-off point determined @ 100 pg/mL Maisel AS et al. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:161-167.
  • 10.
    Natriuretic Peptides andPrognosis in Chronic HF: Data from Val-HeFT Anand, I. et al, Circ 2003
  • 11.
    Predischarge BNP IsStrong Predictor of Post- Discharge Events 0 25 50 75 100 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 DeathorReadmission,% Follow-up, Days Hazard Ratios 15.2 5.1 1 p<.0001 p<.0001 BNP >700 ng/L* (n = 41, events = 38) BNP 350-700 ng/L* (n = 50, events = 30) BNP <350 ng/L* (n = 111, events = 18) Logeart D, et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;43:635-641.
  • 12.
    Change in NTproBNPand Outcomes Masson, JACC 2008
  • 13.
    Kociol R etal, Circ HF 2013
  • 14.
    Biomarker Guided Therapyand All-Cause Mortality: Meta-Analysis Combined BATTLESCARRED STARS-BNP STARBRITE Troughton TIME-CHF PRIMA Felker GM. Am Heart J 2009 N = 1627 Adjusted HR = 0.69 (0.55-0.86)
  • 15.
    High Risk SystolicHF Patient LVEF ≤ 40 within 12 months HF event within 12 mos (HF hosp, ER visit, or outpt IV diuretic) NTproBNP > 2000 pg/mL within last 30 days Usual Care N= 550 Primary endpoint: Time to CV death or first HF hospitalization Secondary Endpoints: All-cause mortality Total days alive and out of hospital during follow-up CV mortality or CV hospitalization Safety Health related quality of life Resource utilization, costs, cost-effectiveness Biomarker Guided NTproBNP < 1000 pg/mL N=550 Follow up: 2 wks, 6 wks, 3 months, then Q3 month for 12-24 mos Screening Randomization Follow-up Endpoints Additional 2 week follow up after changes in therapy
  • 16.
    Ambulatory/Outpatient In ambulatory patientswith dyspnea, measurement of BNP or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT- proBNP) is useful to support clinical decision making regarding the diagnosis of HF, especially in the setting of clinical uncertainty. Measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP is useful for establishing prognosis or disease severity in chronic HF. I IIa IIb III I IIa IIb III
  • 17.
    Hospitalized/Acute Measurement of BNPor NT-proBNP is useful to support clinical judgment for the diagnosis of acutely decompensated HF, especially in the setting of uncertainty for the diagnosis. Measurement of BNP or NT-proBNP and/or cardiac troponin is useful for establishing prognosis or disease severity in acutely decompensated HF. I IIa IIb III I IIa IIb III
  • 18.
    Advantages of NatriureticPeptides as Measures of Congestion • Quantitative • Reproducible across time and across providers • Does not require high level of expertise • Non-invasive • Cheap (relatively) • Supported by guidelines with highest level of recommendation
  • 19.
    Biomarkers Always AugmentClinical Judgment • Impacted by – Age – Gender – Renal function – Atrial fibrillation – Obesity – HFpEF vs. HFrEF
  • 20.
    Greater Decongestion =Better Outcomes Kociol et al, Circ HF 2013 • Drop in NT- proBNP • Change in weight • Net fluid loss
  • 21.
    Conclusions • Natriuretic peptidesrepresent a quantitative, reproducible assessment of myocyte wall stress – Best marker for making diagnosis of HF – Correlate with symptoms – Correlate with outcomes – Change with favorable change in clinical course – Failure to improve with treatment identifies very high risk patients – ? Potential target for adjusting therapy