Prognostic Value of NT-proBNP versus Killip Classification in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Plasma levels of brain natriuretic peptides have better diagnostic accuracy compared to clinical-radiologic judgment for acute heart failure. In acute coronary syndromes (ACS), the prognostic value of acute heart failure is incorporated into predictive models through Killip classification. It is not established whether NT-proBNP could increment prognostic prediction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether NT-proBNP, as a measure of left ventricular dysfunction, improves the in-hospital prognostic value of the GRACE score in ACS. METHODS: Patients admitted due to acute chest pain, with electrocardiogram and/or troponin criteria for ACS were included in the study. The plasma level of NT-proBNP was measured at hospital admission and the primary endpoint was defined as cardiovascular death during hospitalization. P-value < 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: Among 352 patients studied, cardiovascular mortality was 4.8%. The predictive value of NT-proBNP for cardiovascular death was shown by a C-statistic of 0.78 (95% CI = 0.65-0.90). After adjustment for the GRACE model subtracted by Killip variable, NT-proBNP remained independently associated with cardiovascular death (p = 0.015). However, discrimination by the GRACE-BNP logistic model (C-statistics = 0.83; 95%CI = 0.69-0.97) was not superior to the traditional GRACE Score with Killip (C-statistic = 0.82; 95%CI = 0.68-0.97). The GRACE-BNP model did not provide improvement in the classification of patients to high risk by the GRACE Score (net reclassification index = - 0.15; p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: Despite the statistical association with cardiovascular death, there was no evidence that NT-proBNP increments the prognostic value of GRACE score in ACS.

Inconsistency prevents the valuable synergism of explanatory and pragmatic trails.

OBJECTIVE: To assess review articles on pragmatic trials in order to describe how authors define the aim of this type of study, how comprehensive methodological topics are covered, and which topics are most valued by authors. METHODS: Review articles were selected from Medline Database, based on the expression "pragmatic trial" in the titles. Five trained medical students evaluated the articles, based on a list of 15 self-explanatory methodological topics. Each article was evaluated regarding topics covered. Baseline statements on the aim of pragmatic trials were derived. RESULTS: Among 22 articles identified, there was general agreement that the aim of a pragmatic trial is to evaluate if the intervention works under real-world conditions. The mean number of methodological topics addressed by each article was 7.6 ± 3.1. Only one article covered all 15 topics, three articles (14%) responded to at least 75% of topics and 13 articles (59%) mentioned at least 50% of the topics. The relative frequency each of the 15 topics was cited by articles had a mean of 50% ± 25%. No topic was addressed by all articles, only three (20%) were addressed by more than 75% of articles. CONCLUSIONS: There is agreement on the different aims of explanatory and pragmatic trials. But there is a large variation on methodological topics used to define a pragmatic trial, which led to inconsistency in defining the typical methodology of a pragmatic trial.