Brain natriuretic peptide and N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide for the diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus in preterm neonates.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 12 2022
08 12 2022
Historique:
entrez:
8
12
2022
pubmed:
9
12
2022
medline:
15
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Echocardiogram is the reference standard for the diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm infants. A simple blood assay for brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) may be useful in the diagnosis and management of hsPDA, but a summary of the diagnostic accuracy has not been reviewed recently. Primary objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the cardiac biomarkers BNP and NT-proBNP for diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm neonates. Our secondary objectives were: to compare the accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP; and to explore possible sources of heterogeneity among studies evaluating BNP and NT-proBNP, including type of commercial assay, chronological age of the infant at testing, gestational age at birth, whether used to initiate medical or surgical treatment, test threshold, and criteria of the reference standard (type of echocardiographic parameter used for diagnosis, clinical symptoms or physical signs if data were available). We searched the following databases in September 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trial registries and conference abstracts. We checked references of included studies and conducted cited reference searches of included studies. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches or use methodological filters, so as to maximise sensitivity. We included prospective or retrospective, cohort or cross-sectional studies, which evaluated BNP or NT-proBNP (index tests) in preterm infants (participants) with suspected hsPDA (target condition) in comparison with echocardiogram (reference standard). Two authors independently screened title/abstracts and full-texts, resolving any inclusion disagreements through discussion or with a third reviewer. We extracted data from included studies to create 2 × 2 tables. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS 2) tool. We excluded studies that did not report data in sufficient detail to construct 2 × 2 tables, and where this information was not available from the primary investigators. We used bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) random-effects models for meta-analysis and generated summary receiver operating characteristic space (ROC) curves. Since both BNP and NTproBNP are continuous variables, sensitivity and specificity were reported at multiple thresholds. We dealt with the threshold effect by reporting summary ROC curves without summary points. We included 34 studies: 13 evaluated BNP and 21 evaluated NT-proBNP in the diagnosis of hsPDA. Studies varied by methodological quality, type of commercial assay, thresholds, age at testing, gestational age and whether the assay was used to initiate medical or surgical therapy. We noted some variability in the definition of hsPDA among the included studies. For BNP, the summary curve is reported in the ROC space (13 studies, 768 infants, low-certainty evidence). The estimated specificities from the ROC curve at fixed values of sensitivities at median (83%), lower and upper quartiles (79% and 92%) were 93.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77.8 to 98.4), 95.5% (95% CI 83.6 to 98.9) and 81.1% (95% CI 50.6 to 94.7), respectively. Subgroup comparisons revealed differences by type of assay and better diagnostic accuracy at lower threshold cut-offs (< 250 pg/ml compared to ≥ 250 pg/ml), testing at gestational age < 30 weeks and chronological age at testing at one to three days. Data were insufficient for subgroup analysis of whether the BNP testing was indicated for medical or surgical management of PDA. For NT-proBNP, the summary ROC curve is reported in the ROC space (21 studies, 1459 infants, low-certainty evidence). The estimated specificities from the ROC curve at fixed values of sensitivities at median (92%), lower and upper quartiles (85% and 94%) were 83.6% (95% CI 73.3 to 90.5), 90.6% (95% CI 83.8 to 94.7) and 79.4% (95% CI 67.5 to 87.8), respectively. Subgroup analyses by threshold (< 6000 pg/ml and ≥ 6000 pg/ml) did not reveal any differences. Subgroup analysis by mean gestational age (< 30 weeks vs 30 weeks and above) showed better accuracy with < 30 weeks, and chronological age at testing (days one to three vs over three) showed testing at days one to three had better diagnostic accuracy. Data were insufficient for subgroup analysis of whether the NTproBNP testing was indicated for medical or surgical management of PDA. We performed meta-regression for BNP and NT-proBNP using the covariates: assay type, threshold, mean gestational age and chronological age; none of the covariates significantly affected summary sensitivity and specificity. Low-certainty evidence suggests that BNP and NT-proBNP have moderate accuracy in diagnosing hsPDA and may work best as a triage test to select infants for echocardiography. The studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP for hsPDA varied considerably by assay characteristics (assay kit and threshold) and infant characteristics (gestational and chronological age); hence, generalisability between centres is not possible. We recommend that BNP or NT-proBNP assays be locally validated for specific populations and outcomes, to initiate therapy or follow response to therapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Echocardiogram is the reference standard for the diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm infants. A simple blood assay for brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) may be useful in the diagnosis and management of hsPDA, but a summary of the diagnostic accuracy has not been reviewed recently.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the cardiac biomarkers BNP and NT-proBNP for diagnosis of haemodynamically significant patent ductus arteriosus (hsPDA) in preterm neonates. Our secondary objectives were: to compare the accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP; and to explore possible sources of heterogeneity among studies evaluating BNP and NT-proBNP, including type of commercial assay, chronological age of the infant at testing, gestational age at birth, whether used to initiate medical or surgical treatment, test threshold, and criteria of the reference standard (type of echocardiographic parameter used for diagnosis, clinical symptoms or physical signs if data were available).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases in September 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Web of Science. We also searched clinical trial registries and conference abstracts. We checked references of included studies and conducted cited reference searches of included studies. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches or use methodological filters, so as to maximise sensitivity.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included prospective or retrospective, cohort or cross-sectional studies, which evaluated BNP or NT-proBNP (index tests) in preterm infants (participants) with suspected hsPDA (target condition) in comparison with echocardiogram (reference standard).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened title/abstracts and full-texts, resolving any inclusion disagreements through discussion or with a third reviewer. We extracted data from included studies to create 2 × 2 tables. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS 2) tool. We excluded studies that did not report data in sufficient detail to construct 2 × 2 tables, and where this information was not available from the primary investigators. We used bivariate and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) random-effects models for meta-analysis and generated summary receiver operating characteristic space (ROC) curves. Since both BNP and NTproBNP are continuous variables, sensitivity and specificity were reported at multiple thresholds. We dealt with the threshold effect by reporting summary ROC curves without summary points.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 studies: 13 evaluated BNP and 21 evaluated NT-proBNP in the diagnosis of hsPDA. Studies varied by methodological quality, type of commercial assay, thresholds, age at testing, gestational age and whether the assay was used to initiate medical or surgical therapy. We noted some variability in the definition of hsPDA among the included studies. For BNP, the summary curve is reported in the ROC space (13 studies, 768 infants, low-certainty evidence). The estimated specificities from the ROC curve at fixed values of sensitivities at median (83%), lower and upper quartiles (79% and 92%) were 93.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 77.8 to 98.4), 95.5% (95% CI 83.6 to 98.9) and 81.1% (95% CI 50.6 to 94.7), respectively. Subgroup comparisons revealed differences by type of assay and better diagnostic accuracy at lower threshold cut-offs (< 250 pg/ml compared to ≥ 250 pg/ml), testing at gestational age < 30 weeks and chronological age at testing at one to three days. Data were insufficient for subgroup analysis of whether the BNP testing was indicated for medical or surgical management of PDA. For NT-proBNP, the summary ROC curve is reported in the ROC space (21 studies, 1459 infants, low-certainty evidence). The estimated specificities from the ROC curve at fixed values of sensitivities at median (92%), lower and upper quartiles (85% and 94%) were 83.6% (95% CI 73.3 to 90.5), 90.6% (95% CI 83.8 to 94.7) and 79.4% (95% CI 67.5 to 87.8), respectively. Subgroup analyses by threshold (< 6000 pg/ml and ≥ 6000 pg/ml) did not reveal any differences. Subgroup analysis by mean gestational age (< 30 weeks vs 30 weeks and above) showed better accuracy with < 30 weeks, and chronological age at testing (days one to three vs over three) showed testing at days one to three had better diagnostic accuracy. Data were insufficient for subgroup analysis of whether the NTproBNP testing was indicated for medical or surgical management of PDA. We performed meta-regression for BNP and NT-proBNP using the covariates: assay type, threshold, mean gestational age and chronological age; none of the covariates significantly affected summary sensitivity and specificity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-certainty evidence suggests that BNP and NT-proBNP have moderate accuracy in diagnosing hsPDA and may work best as a triage test to select infants for echocardiography. The studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of BNP and NT-proBNP for hsPDA varied considerably by assay characteristics (assay kit and threshold) and infant characteristics (gestational and chronological age); hence, generalisability between centres is not possible. We recommend that BNP or NT-proBNP assays be locally validated for specific populations and outcomes, to initiate therapy or follow response to therapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36478359
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013129.pub2
pmc: PMC9730301
doi:
Substances chimiques
Natriuretic Peptide, Brain
114471-18-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD013129Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jul;67(7):760-8
pubmed: 24725643
J Perinatol. 2009 Feb;29(2):137-42
pubmed: 19020527
Semin Perinatol. 2012 Apr;36(2):123-9
pubmed: 22414883
Pediatrics. 1980 Jul;66(1):42-9
pubmed: 7402791
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Oct;149:105142
pubmed: 32861196
Acta Paediatr. 2013 Aug;102(8):e347-52
pubmed: 23611593
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2009 May;94(3):F178-82
pubmed: 18981033
Pediatrics. 1993 Mar;91(3):540-5
pubmed: 8441556
Pediatrics. 2017 Aug;140(2):
pubmed: 28701390
Arch Cardiol Mex. 2020 Nov 03;91(1):17-24
pubmed: 33142312
JAMA. 2015 Jun 23-30;313(24):2441-8
pubmed: 26103028
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007 Nov;92(6):F424-7
pubmed: 17951547
Clin Chem. 2008 Apr;54(4):729-37
pubmed: 18258670
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:142-152
pubmed: 32058069
Neonatology. 2012;101(2):116-24
pubmed: 21952518
J Pediatr. 1995 Nov;127(5):774-9
pubmed: 7472835
J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2014 Jan 1;7(3):213-22
pubmed: 25322997
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2011 Mar;96(2):F133-7
pubmed: 21071684
Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2015 Sep;53(9):717-20
pubmed: 26757976
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2014 Mar;99(2):F99-F104
pubmed: 24317704
Acta Paediatr. 2015 Apr;104(4):e139-42
pubmed: 25488470
Pediatrics. 2005 Mar;115(3):e255-61
pubmed: 15687418
J Perinatol. 2018 Nov;38(11):1483-1489
pubmed: 30171214
Pediatr Res. 2019 Sep;86(3):333-338
pubmed: 30287890
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2014;18(18):2596-8
pubmed: 25317790
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2013 Nov;98(6):F505-10
pubmed: 23893268
Pak J Med Sci. 2016 May-Jun;32(3):580-4
pubmed: 27375693
Med Decis Making. 2008 Sep-Oct;28(5):621-38
pubmed: 18591542
Acta Paediatr. 2009 Aug;98(8):1254-9
pubmed: 19432837
Eur J Heart Fail. 2004 Mar 15;6(3):261-8
pubmed: 14987574
Circulation. 1974 Oct;50(4):821-5
pubmed: 4418268
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2005 Feb;40(2):184-8
pubmed: 15699694
Pediatrics. 2009 Jan;123(1):e138-44
pubmed: 19117835
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):797-806
pubmed: 19447581
J Clin Med. 2021 Aug 22;10(16):
pubmed: 34442025
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Semin Perinatol. 2012 Apr;36(2):130-8
pubmed: 22414884
Clin Chem. 2007 May;53(5):813-22
pubmed: 17384013
J Pediatr. 1984 Jun;104(6):915-20
pubmed: 6726527
J Perinatol. 2005 Nov;25(11):709-13
pubmed: 16222347
Early Hum Dev. 2009 Mar;85(3):147-9
pubmed: 19217224
Pediatrics. 1999 Dec;104(6):1345-50
pubmed: 10585987
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2020;75(3):335-347
pubmed: 32280084
Korean Circ J. 2012 Mar;42(3):192-6
pubmed: 22493614
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2007 Sep;92(5):F421-2
pubmed: 17712194
Neonatology. 2012;101(4):260-6
pubmed: 22222353
Ups J Med Sci. 2013 May;118(2):75-9
pubmed: 23230860
Early Hum Dev. 2013 Mar;89(3):187-9
pubmed: 23084575
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Sep;97(37):e12206
pubmed: 30212951
Acta Paediatr. 2011 Sep;100(9):1217-21
pubmed: 21457304
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1996 Nov;75(3):F183-6
pubmed: 8976684
Pediatrics. 2010 May;125(5):1020-30
pubmed: 20421261
JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Sep;169(9):863-72
pubmed: 26168357
Korean J Pediatr. 2017 Jun;60(6):175-180
pubmed: 28690644
Acta Paediatr. 2001 Feb;90(2):184-91
pubmed: 11236049
Early Hum Dev. 2017 Feb;105:41-47
pubmed: 27998626
Pediatrics. 2006 Jun;117(6):2183-9
pubmed: 16740863
Pediatr Cardiol. 2010 Jan;31(1):62-5
pubmed: 19859762
Am J Perinatol. 2017 Nov;34(13):1312-1317
pubmed: 28561144
Pediatr Cardiol. 2004 Jul-Aug;25(4):341-6
pubmed: 15054559
Circ Heart Fail. 2009 Sep;2(5):393-400
pubmed: 19808368
Early Hum Dev. 2010 May;86(5):295-8
pubmed: 20488634
Korean J Pediatr. 2016 Apr;59(4):183-9
pubmed: 27186229
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jun;122:129-141
pubmed: 32060007
Pediatr Pulmonol. 2018 Aug;53(8):1073-1081
pubmed: 29790673
Minerva Pediatr. 2010 Jun;62(3 Suppl 1):67-70
pubmed: 21089722
J Perinatol. 2010 Dec;30(12):780-5
pubmed: 20376057
Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2011 Spring;41(2):131-7
pubmed: 21844570
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008 Nov;93(6):F407-12
pubmed: 18285375
Neonatology. 2013;103(2):118-22
pubmed: 23182972
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2010 May;48(5):697-700
pubmed: 20187851
Eur J Pediatr. 2018 Apr;177(4):521-532
pubmed: 29352349
Pediatrics. 2010 Sep;126(3):443-56
pubmed: 20732945
Clin Sci (Lond). 2002 Jul;103(1):75-7
pubmed: 12095406
J Pediatr. 1978 Oct;93(4):647-51
pubmed: 702245
Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2015 Nov;17(11):1160-4
pubmed: 26575871
Pediatrics. 2015 Feb;135(2):e510-25
pubmed: 25601976
Pediatr Cardiol. 2011 Oct;32(7):953-7
pubmed: 21656237
J Perinatol. 2013 Mar;33(3):212-7
pubmed: 22743407
Clin Lab. 2014;60(6):881-6
pubmed: 25016690
Pediatr Res. 2016 Dec;80(6):785-792
pubmed: 27509008
Semin Perinatol. 2012 Apr;36(2):114-22
pubmed: 22414882
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Dec;59(12):1331-2; author reply 1332-3
pubmed: 17098577
Acta Paediatr. 2016 Aug;105(8):e352-5
pubmed: 27206680
Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(6):1615-1619
pubmed: 34712293
J Perinatol. 2018 Jul;38(7):881-888
pubmed: 29785059
Eur J Pediatr. 2014 Nov;173(11):1491-6
pubmed: 24898778
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Jan 12;7:3
pubmed: 17222330
J Pediatr. 2010 Jul;157(1):79-84
pubmed: 20227723
Can J Cardiol. 2013 Dec;29(12):1535-52
pubmed: 24267800
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993 Jan;76(1):91-6
pubmed: 8380606
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1994 Mar;70(2):F112-7
pubmed: 8154903
Pediatrics. 2006 Apr;117(4):1113-21
pubmed: 16585305
J Saudi Heart Assoc. 2021 Jan 08;32(4):462-470
pubmed: 33537192
Pediatr Res. 2008 Sep;64(3):286-90
pubmed: 18414139
Iran J Pediatr. 2014 Dec;24(6):766-9
pubmed: 26019784
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2013 Jan;29(1):3-11
pubmed: 23257208
Acta Paediatr. 2012 Mar;101(3):247-51
pubmed: 21913976
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Nov;27(17):1800-4
pubmed: 24397409
Pediatr Cardiol. 2014 Jan;35(1):77-81
pubmed: 23824377
An Pediatr (Barc). 2017 Jun;86(6):321-328
pubmed: 26936584
J Perinatol. 2017 Dec;37(12):1319-1324
pubmed: 28906496
BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1089-92
pubmed: 16675820
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008 Jul;93(4):F257-60
pubmed: 18218660
J Clin Neonatol. 2012 Apr;1(2):82-6
pubmed: 24027696
Pak J Med Sci. 2021;37(6):1657-1661
pubmed: 34712301
Int J Pediatr. 2009;2009:175216
pubmed: 20069108
Acta Paediatr. 2012 May;101(5):e213-8
pubmed: 21919954
J Pediatr. 2005 Jul;147(1):38-42
pubmed: 16027692
J Perinatol. 2020 Apr;40(4):607-615
pubmed: 31925319