Follow us on :


Take a look at the Recent articles

Association between N-terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide levels, glomerular filtration rate, and heart failure in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

Daneyal Syed

Department of Public Health Sciences, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA

E-mail : bhuvaneswari.bibleraaj@uhsm.nhs.uk

Stephanie Peshenko

Department of Public Health Sciences, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA

Kiang Liu

Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

Ramon Durazo-Arvizu

Department of Public Health Sciences, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA

Sylvia E Rosas

Kidney and Hypertension Unit, Joslin Diabetes Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Michael Shlipak

General Internal Medicine Section, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco, USA

Mark Sarnak

Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

David Jacobs

Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA and affiliated with the Department of Nutrition, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

David Sickovick

New York Academy of Medicine, New York, New York, USA

João Lima

Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Richard Kronmal

Collaborating health Studies Coordinating Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Holly Kramer

Department of Public Health Sciences, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA

Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL, USA

DOI: 10.15761/JIC.1000246

Article
Article Info
Author Info
Figures & Data

Abstract

Background: This study examined the complementary prognostic role of NT-proBNP and eGFR for predicting heart failure (HF) in adults with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD) defined as eGFR<60 ml/min/1.73m2.

Methods: We used data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, a cohort of 6814 adults without baseline clinical cardiovascular disease. Five-year risk prediction of HF based on clinical HF risk variables (HFRV) plus NT-proBNP, eGFR or both was assessed using the C-statistic and the net reclassification index (NRI) after stratifying by CKD status. 

Results: Mean age at baseline was 62.3±10.3 years and CKD were present in 5.9%. A total of 39 and 180 HF events occurred in participants with and without CKD, respectively. Among adults with CKD, the C-statistic for HF risk prediction increased significantly (P =0.04) from 0.71 (95% CI 0.64, 0.78) with HFRV alone to 0.78 (95% CI 0.71, 0.85) with addition of NT-proBNP. In the non-CKD group, the C-statistic increased from 0.77 (95% CI 0.74, 0.80) with HFRV alone to 0.83 (95% CI 0.80, 0.85) with addition of NT-proBNP. Further addition of eGFR to the model did not alter the C-statistic regardless of CKD status. NRI improved by 23.1% and 10.2% in CKD and non-CKD, respectively, with the addition of NT-proBNP alone and findings were similar when both eGFR and NT-proBNP were both added to model. 

Conclusions:  In adults without clinical cardiovascular disease, the addition of NT-proBNP but not eGFR to established HFRV improves HF risk prediction in adults with and without CKD.  

Key words

Chronic Kidney Disease, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, heart failure, risk prediction, Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, estimated glomerular filtration rate

Introduction

Presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD), defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60mL/min/1.73m2, is associated with heightened risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) including heart failure (HF) and this risk increases as eGFR declines [1-5]. Risk for incident HF is three-fold higher among adults with eGFR<60mL/min/1.73m2 vs. those with eGFR>90 [6]. Moreover, adults with eGFR<60mL/min/1.73m2 who present with dyspnea are more likely to have HF compared to adults without CKD presenting with the same symptoms [7]. However, studies have not consistently demonstrated that eGFR improves HF risk prediction above and beyond established HF risk factors such as age, systolic blood pressure (SBP), body mass index (BMI), and heart rate (HR) [8-14].

N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) is a prohormone secreted by cardiac ventricles in response to excessive stretching of cardiomyoctes and has direct inhibitory effects on sodium transport in the inner medullary collecting duct [15] to help maintain volume homeostasis. Elevated levels of the biomarker NT-proBNP are strongly associated with HF [16-18] and are used clinically to diagnose HF in patients presenting with dyspnea [19-21].  However, higher NT-proBNP cut-points are required in settings of low eGFR [22] because NT-proBNP clearance is in part dependent on glomerular filtration rate [23-25].

Because both NT-proBNP and eGFR are associated with HF, the addition of NT-proBNP and eGFR with established HF risk factors may improve risk prediction for these outcomes, especially in adults with eGFR<60ml/min/1.73m2.  A parsimonious HF risk score has been previously developed and validated and includes variables available to all clinicians: age, sex, smoking status, BMI, SBP, HR, and diabetes along with NT-proBNP [11]. This parsimonious HF risk score has a C-statistic of 0.87 for HF risk prediction in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) cohort, a group without baseline CVD, but eGFR was not examined as a potential variable.  This study examines the complementary prognostic role of NT-proBNP and eGFR with established clinical HF risk factors for prediction of HF in adults. Analyses were stratified by presence of CKD defined as eGFR<60 ml/min/1.73m2 due to the significant statistical interaction between CKD status and NT-proBNP levels on HF risk.   We hypothesized that both eGFR and NT-proBNP will improve HF risk prediction in adults with CKD.

Methods

Study population

The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) is a population-based study of 6,814 men and women aged 44-84 years, without clinical CVD, recruited from six U.S. communities between 12/1/2000 and 7/30/2002 (Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; Forsyth County, NC; Los Angeles County, CA; northern Manhattan, NY; and St. Paul, MN).  Sampling and recruitment procedures have been described in detail elsewhere [26]. Subjects with symptoms or history of medical or surgical treatment for CVD were excluded at study entry.  Adults who self-reported as non-Hispanic White, African-American, Hispanic, or Chinese were invited to participate.  Institutional Review Board approval was obtained at all MESA sites. Of the 6,814 subjects, 5,597 had plasma NT-proBNP measurement and 88 participants were excluded due to missing data on at least 1 other MESA 5-year HF risk variables (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, heart rate, systolic blood pressure and diabetes), cystatin C levels, or serum creatinine levels at the baseline examination. Five individuals (3 with CKD and 2 without CKD) were not followed for events, leaving a total of 5,504 participants included in the present analyses.

Brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements

NT-proBNP levels were measured using the Elecys-electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics Corporation, Indianapolis, IN, USA).  Analyses were performed at the University of California, San Diego using a 250μl serum sample drawn at the baseline examination and were previously unthawed or only thawed once. Intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation (CV) were 2.7% and 3.2%, respectively, at 175pg/mL, 2.4% and 2.9%, respectively, at 355pg/mL, 1.9% and 2.6%, respectively, at 1068pg/mL, and 1.8% and 2.3%, respectively, at 4962 pg/Ml [27].

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)

Cystatin C measurements were made using a BNII nephelometer on plasma specimens (N Latex Cystatin C; Dade Behring Inc., Deerfield, IL). The assay range was 0.195 to 7.33 mg/L. The reported reference range for cystatin C among young, healthy individuals is 0.53 to 0.96 mg/L. Intra- and inter-assay CV ranges were 2.0 to 2.8%, and 2.3 to 3.1%, respectively. Serum creatinine was measured at exam 1 using colorimetry with a Johnson & Johnson Vitros 950 analyzer (Johnson & Johnson Clinical Diagnostics Inc. Rochester, NY). Creatinine values measured at exam 1 were calibrated with creatinine values measured at exam 5 using an isotope dilution mass spectrometry traceable method.  The intra- and inter-assay CVs were <2%. Presence of CKD was defined as an eGFR<60mL/min/1.73m2 by the creatinine-cystatin C CKD-EPI equation [28].

Heart failure risk variables (HFRV)

For the purpose of this analysis, we define HFRV as the variables identified within the MESA 5-year HF risk score (age, sex, smoking status, BMI, SBP, HR, and diabetes) with the exception of NT-proBNP. All MESA participants completed self-administered questionnaires in English, Spanish, or Chinese and were interviewed by trained research staff in order to collect information pertaining to demographic characteristics, medical history, medication, alcohol and tobacco use.  Trained and certified clinic staff obtained blood pressure and anthropometric measurements on all MESA participants during the baseline visit.  After a five-minute rest, blood pressure was measured three times at one-minute intervals using a Dinamap PRO 100 automated oscillometric device (Critikon; Tampa, FL) with the subject in a seated position with the back and arm supported.  The average of the second and third SBP measurements was used for this analysis.  Diabetes mellitus was defined as a self-reported diagnosis, use of insulin or oral hypoglycemic agents, or fasting glucose≥126mg/dL.  Smoking status was dichotomized as current smoking versus former or never smoker.

Heart Failure (HF)

Information on new cardiovascular events was obtained by a telephone interviewer who contacted each participant or family members every 9-12 months to inquire about interim hospital admissions, cardiovascular outpatient diagnoses, and deaths. Self-reported diagnoses were confirmed via death certificates and medical records for all hospitalizations and outpatient cardiovascular diagnoses. All cardiovascular events were adjudicated and classified by two members of the mortality and morbidity review committee (cardiologists or cardiovascular physician epidemiologists).  Persisting disagreements were classified by the full review committee. Reviewers classified HF as definite, probable, or absent.  A designation of definite or probable HF required HF symptoms, such as shortness of breath or edema.  Additionally, classification of probable HF required a physician diagnosis of HF and documentation of medical treatment. Definite HF also required one or more additional criteria, such as pulmonary edema/congestion by chest X-ray, decreased left ventricular systolic function by echocardiography or ventriculography, or evidence of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction by echocardiography [29]. Definite or probable HF was used to define HF for the present analysis.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive baseline characteristics of MESA participants were examined after stratifying by CKD status.   Continuous variables were compared by CKD status using the unpaired t-test.  Categorical variables were compared using the χ2 statistic.  Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the linear association between eGFR and log transformed NT-proBNP in the MESA participants stratified by CKD status.

Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate the hazard ratios for HF by presence of clinical HF risk variables, log transformed NT-proBNP and eGFR. The assumptions of the Cox proportional hazards models were examined by plotting the natural log of the cumulative hazard of HF by the natural log of time. The natural log transformation was applied to NT-proBNP to address the skewed distribution. A multi-model approach was used to examine the association between eGFR and NT-proBNP and hazard of incident HF while simultaneously adjusting for HFRV. Model 1 included HFRV: age, sex, BMI, smoking status, SBP, HR, and diabetes. Model 2 included the HFRV plus eGFR; Model 3 included the HFRV plus log transformed NT-proBNP, and Model 4 included HFRV, log transformed NT-proBNP and eGFR. A statistically significant interaction was noted between CKD status and log transformed NT-proBNP (P = 0.007) on the hazard rate of HF with adjustment for all covariates. Therefore, separate Cox proportional hazards models were constructed for those with and without baseline CKD. To compare risk discrimination, we calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (C statistic) and likelihood-based measures (-2 Log Likelihood, the Akaike information criterion [AIC] and the Bayes information criterion [BIC]) for each model [30,31].

MESA participants were classified according to their 5-year HF risk: low risk (<5%), average risk (5-10%), and high risk (>10%) based on each model. Despite 12-year follow-up data, 5-year HF risk was calculated in accordance with the 5-year MESA HF risk score [11]. Risk stratification capacity was defined as the proportion of participants classified as high or low risk and who did or did not have an event, respectively, and net reclassification improvement (NRI) was calculated [32-34]. Individual components of the NRI, assessing improvement in event and non-event classifications, were calculated [33]. Z scores were calculated for the NRI and its individual components and hypothesis testing was conducted using an asymptotic test for the null hypothesis of NRI=0 [33]. Statistical analyses were performed with the use of STATA software version 14.2 (STATA Corp., College Station, Texas).

Results

Overall, a total of 325 participants with CKD and 5,179 without CKD were included in the analyses. In the CKD group, 8.3% (n=27) had an eGFR<30 mL/min/1.73m2. The median duration of follow-up was 12.1 years (IQR: 11.6-12.7), and incidence rate of HF was higher among participants with CKD (13.1 [95% CI 9.6, 18.0] per 1000 person-years) than those without CKD (3.1 [95% CI 2.7, 3.6] per 1000 person-years, p<0.001). The characteristics of the MESA participants by CKD status are shown in Table 1. Participants with CKD were significantly older (73.0±8.0 vs. 61.6±10.1 years; p<0.001) and more likely to have hypertension (78.2% vs. 42.1%; p < 0.001) and diabetes (19.9% vs. 12.6%; p<0.001). Geometric mean values of NT-proBNP values were 158.0 pg/mL (95% CI 140, 178) in the CKD group and 47.2 pg/mL (95% CI 45.8, 48.7) in the non-CKD group.  

Table 1.  Baseline characteristics of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) participants by baseline Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Status.

 

Total (n=5,504)

CKD (n=325)

Non-CKD (n=5,179)

*P-value

Age (years)

62.3±10.3

73.0±8.0

61.6±10.1

<0.001

Sex (Male)

48.6%

43.1%

48.9%

0.04

Black

24.1%

22.8%

24.2%

0.6

White

39.4%

45.2%

39.0%

<0.001

Hispanic

23.1%

19.4%

23.4%

0.1

Chinese

13.4%

12.6%

13.5%

0.7

Smoking

12.6%

8.3%

12.9%

0.02

BMI (kg/m2)

28.2±5.4

28.5±5.4

28.2±5.4

0.3

Diabetes Mellitus

13.2%

19.9%

12.6%

<0.001

Heart rate (beats per minute)

63.1±9.7

63.6±11.2

63.1±9.6

0.3

SBP (mmHg)

126±21.4

139±25.0

126±20.9

<0.001

Hypertension

44.2%

78.2%

42.1%

<0.001

Blood pressure medication use

32.6%

64.6%

30.6%

<0.001

LDL (mg/dL)

117±31.4

116±33.5

117±31.2

0.74

HDL (mg/dL)

50.8±14.8

49.6±15.0

50.9±14.8

0.1

Cholesterol (mg/dL)

194±35.9

196±41.4

194±35.5

0.3

Lipid lowering medication use

16.1%

27.4%

15.4%

<0.001

†NT-proBNP (pg/mL)

50.7 (49.1, 52.3)

158.0 (140, 178)

47.2 (45.8, 48.7)

<0.001

Cystatin C (mg/L)

0.90±0.25

1.49±0.60

0.86±0.15

<0.001

Creatinine (mg/dL)

0.84±0.29

1.33±0.80

0.81±0.17

<0.001

Creatinine-cystatin C eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2)

89.8±18.4

48.8±11.0

92.4±15.5

<0.001

Heart failure

219 (3.98%)

39 (12.0%)

180 (3.48%)

<0.001

Data presented as mean ± standard deviation or frequency (%) unless otherwise noted.  *P-values compare CKD with Non-CKD groups.  Abbreviations: CKD = chronic kidney disease; BMI = body mass index; SBP = systolic blood pressure; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; HDL = high-density lipoprotein; †NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide shown as geometric mean (95% CI); eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate based on serum creatinine and cystatin C levels [28]. CKD defined as eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2.

Table 2 shows the characteristics of MESA participants with and without incident HF after stratifying by CKD status. A total of 39 and 180 HF events occurred in the CKD and non-CKD groups, respectively. Among those with CKD, participants with HF were more likely to be male (64.1% vs. 40.2%; p=0.005), have higher SBP (144±26.8 vs. 139±24.7 mmHg; p=0.16) and have diabetes (35.9% vs. 19.6%; p=0.02). Geometric mean values of log transformed NT pro-BNP levels were significantly higher among those with HF than those without HF in the CKD group (331 [95% CI: 215, 510] vs. 143 [95% CI: 127, 161] pg/mL; p<0.001).  In the non-CKD group, participants experiencing events were significantly older (67.9±8.7 vs. 61.4±10.0 years; p<0.001), had greater BMI (29.5±5.6 vs 28.2±5.4 kg/m2; p=0.002), SBP (137±21.9 vs. 125±20.8 mmHg; p<0.001), heart rate (65.9±10.5 vs. 63.0±9.5 bpm; p<0.001), and geometric mean values of NT pro-BNP levels (126 [95% CI: 106, 149] vs. 45.6 [95% CI: 44.2, 47.0] pg/mL; p<0.001). Significant correlations were noted between log transformed NT-proBNP levels and eGFR among participants with CKD (r=-0.19; p<0.001) and without CKD (r=-0.33; p<0.001).

Table 2. Risk factor characteristics by Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) status and by heart failure status in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

 

Variables

CKD Group (n=325)

Non-CKD Group (n=5,179)

HF

(n=39)

No HF

(n=286)

P value

HF

(n=180)

No HF

(n=4,999)

P value

Age (years)

73.3±7.0

72.9±8.1

0.8

67.9±8.7

61.4±10.0

<0.001

Sex (Male)

64.1%

40.2%

0.005

60.0%

48.5%

0.002

BMI (kg/m2)

29.6±5.6

28.4±5.4

0.2

29.5±5.6

28.2±5.4

<0.001

Smoking

5.1%

8.7%

0.6

13.9%

12.8%

0.7

SBP (mmHg)

144±26.8

139±24.7

0.16

137±21.9

125±20.8

<0.001

Heart rate (bpm)

62.7±10.7

63.8±11.3

0.6

65.9±10.5

63.0±9.5

<0.001

Diabetes

35.9%

19.6%

0.02

31.7%

12%

<0.001

+NT-proBNP (pg/mL)

331 (215, 510)

143 (127, 161)

<0.001

126 (106, 149)

45.6 (44.2, 47.0)

<0.001

eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2)

46.6±12.2

49.2±10.8

0.2

86.2±15.0

92.6±15.5

<0.001

Data presented as mean ± SD or frequency (%) unless otherwise noted.  Abbreviations: CKD = chronic kidney disease; HF = heart failure; BMI = body mass index; SBP = systolic blood pressure; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate based on serum creatinine and cystatin C levels [28]; NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide; CKD defined as eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2;  +P values calculated by comparing mean values of log transformed NT-proBNP levels and values shown as geometric means (95% CI)

Results from the Cox proportional hazard models with HFRV, eGFR, and NT-proBNP for hazard of incident HF in MESA participants stratified by baseline CKD status are presented in Table 3. The continuous variable eGFR was not significantly associated with HF after adjustment for HFRV in the CKD or non-CKD groups. LogNT-proBNP remained significantly associated with HF after adjustment for HFRV in both the CKD and non-CKD groups. Table 4 shows the measures of model fit for HF risk prediction with HFRV alone or when combined with eGFR, NT-proBNP or both.  Regardless of the model, the C statistic was consistently lower in the group with CKD vs. without CKD (P < 0.01 for all models). Overall, the highest C-statistic and lowest AIC and BIC were noted for models that included NT-proBNP in the CKD and non-CKD groups. Further addition of eGFR to the model that included HFRV and NT-proBNP did not appreciably increase the C-statistic regardless of CKD status.

Table 3. Cox regression risk analysis for prediction of heart failure by Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) status in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (n=5504).

 

Univariate

Multivariable

 

HR (95% CI)

P Value

HR (95% CI)

P Value

Variable

Chronic Kidney Disease (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) (n=325)

Age (years)

1.01 (0.97, 1.06)

0.5

1.01 (0.96, 1.06)

0.8

Sex (Male)

2.67 (1.39, 5.14)

<0.001

3.14 (1.58, 6.25)

0.001

BMI (kg/m2)

1.04 (0.98, 1.10)

0.2

1.05 (0.99, 1.12)

0.1

Smoking status

0.65 (0.16, 2.71)

0.6

0.58 (0.13, 2.66)

0.5

SBP (mmHg)

1.01 (0.997, 1.02)

0.1

1.01 (0.99, 1.02)

0.4

Heart rate (bpm)

0.99 (0.97, 1.02)

0.7

1.01 (0.98, 1.04)

0.6

Diabetes

2.41 (1.25, 4.64)

0.01

1.56 (0.72, 3.35)

0.3

logNT-proBNP (pg/mL)

2.12 (1.63, 2.74)

<0.001

1.90 (1.47, 2.46)

<0.001

*eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2)

0.97 (0.95, 0.99)

0.04

0.99 (0.97, 1.02)

0.5

Variable

No Chronic Kidney Disease (eGFR 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) (n=5,179)

Age (years)

1.08 (1.06, 1.09)

<0.001

1.04 (1.02, 1.06)

<0.001

Sex (Male)

1.62 (1.20, 2.18)

0.002

2.68 (1.97, 3.66)

<0.001

BMI (kg/m2)

1.04 (1.02, 1.07)

0.001

1.05 (1.02, 1.08)

<0.001

Smoking status

1.15 (0.75, 1.75)

0.5

1.59 (1.03, 2.48)

0.04

SBP (mmHg)

1.02 (1.02, 1.03)

<0.001

1.01 (0.999, 1.01)

0.1

Heart rate (bpm)

1.03 (1.02, 1.05)

<0.001

1.04 (1.02, 1.05)

<0.001

Diabetes

3.53 (2.58, 4.83)

<0.001

2.42 (1.74, 3.37)

<0.001

logNT-proBNP (pg/mL)

2.42 (2.11, 2.78)

<0.001

2.36 (2.04, 2.73)

<0.001

*eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2)

0.97 (0.96, 0.98)

<0.001

0.99 (0.98, 1.004)

0.2

Data presented as Hazard Ratios (95% CI).  Abbreviations: CKD = chronic kidney disease; eGFR= estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated with serum creatinine and cystatin C; BMI = body mass index; SBP = systolic blood pressure; logNT-proBNP = log transformed N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. *eGFR and log transformed NT-proBNP were tested separately, and multivariable HRs and p values for other variables are from a model which included log transformed NT-proBNP and not eGFR.

Table 4.  Measures of model fit for prediction of heart failure with heart failure risk variables (HFRV) only or combined with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) or both among adults with and without Chronic Kidney Disease in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (n=5504).

 

HFRV

HFRV + eGFR

HFRV + NT-proBNP

HFRV + eGFR + NT-proBNP

Chronic Kidney Disease (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) (n=325)

C-statistic (95% CI)

0.71 (0.64, 0.78)

0.73 (0.64, 0.78)

0.78 (0.71, 0.85)*

0.79 (0.71, 0.86)*

Log likelihood

-204.2

-204.0

-193.4

-192.1

Akaike Information Criterion

422.4

424.0

402.8

402.3

Bayes Information Criterion

448.8

454.2

433.0

436.3

Net Reclassification Index

Referent

6.53%

23.1%

28.8%*

Risk Stratification Capacity

64.3%

63.1%

77.8%

77.2%

No Chronic Kidney Disease (eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2)(n=5,179)

C-statistic (95% CI)

0.77 (0.74, 0.80)

0.77 (0.74, 0.80)

0.83 (0.80, 0.85)*

0.83 (0.80, 0.85)*

Log likelihood

-1420.4

-1419.6

-1357.6

-1357.5

Akaike Information Criterion

2854.9

2855.2

2731.2

2733.1

Bayes Information Criterion

2900.7

2907.6

2783.6

2792.0

Net Reclassification Index

Referent

-0.46%

10.2%*

15.9%*

Risk Stratification Capacity

96.1%

96.2%

97.7%

96.8%

Abbreviations: eGFR= estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated with serum creatinine and cystatin C. [28]  Heart failure risk variables (HFRV) = age, sex, body mass index, smoking, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and diabetes.  *P < 0.05 compared with model with heart failure risk variables (HFRV) only.

Reclassification analyses demonstrated that addition of NT-proBNP to HFRV improved NRI by 23.1% (p=0.07; pevents=0.53; pnon-events<0.001) in those with CKD and by 10.2% (p=0.003; pevents=0.01; pnon-events<0.001) in those without CKD while the addition of eGFR to HFRV changed the NRI by 6.53% (p=0.09; pevents=0.16; pnon-events=0.25) and -0.46% (p=0.72; pevents=0.65; pnon-events=0.45) in the CKD and non-CKD groups, respectively.  The addition of both NT-proBNP and eGFR to HFRV improved net reclassification by 28.8% (p=0.02; pevents=0.40; pnon-events<0.001) in those with CKD and by 15.9% (p<0.001; pevents<0.001; pnon-events=0.54) in those without CKD (Table 5 & 6).

Table 5. Reclassification table for events and nonevents comparing heart failure risk variable (HFRV) model with model adjusting for HFRV, log N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (logNTproBNP), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among adults with CKD.

 

 

HFRV + logNTproBNP + eGFR model

HFRV model

Events (n=39)

<5%

5-10%

>10%

Row Total

<5%

2

2

0

4

5-10%

8

8

11

27

>10%

1

0

7

8

Column Total

11

10

18

39

 

 

HFRV + logNTproBNP + eGFR model

HFRV

model

Non-Events (n=286)

<5%

5-10%

>10%

Row Total

<5%

135

16

2

153

5-10%

52

30

7

89

>10%

8

18

18

44

Column Total

195

64

27

286

 

Abbreviations: HFRV = heart failure risk variables (age, sex, body mass index, smoking, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and diabetes); logNTproBNP = log transformed N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; CKD = chronic kidney disease.  Each interior cell contains the number of persons in the corresponding risk categories under the old and new risk models.  Corresponding NRI = 28.8% (p=0.02; pevents=0.40; pnon-events<0.001) in CKD group.

Table 6.  Reclassification table for events and nonevents comparing heart failure risk variable (HFRV) model with model adjusting for HFRV, log N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (logNTproBNP), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among adults without CKD.

 

 

HFRV + logNTproBNP + eGFR model

HFRV model

Events (n=180)

<5%

5-10%

>10%

Row Total

<5%

122

20

7

149

5-10%

5

6

12

23

>10%

3

2

3

8

Column Total

130

28

22

180

 

 

HFRV + logNTproBNP + eGFR model

HFRV

model

Non-Events (n=4,999)

<5%

5-10%

>10%

Row Total

<5%

4,682

92

15

4,789

5-10%

109

39

30

178

>10%

9

9

14

32

Column Total

4,800

140

59

4,999

Abbreviations: HFRV = heart failure risk variables (age, sex, body mass index, smoking, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and diabetes); logNTproBNP = log transformed N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; CKD = chronic kidney disease.  Each interior cell contains the number of persons in the corresponding risk categories under the old and new risk models.  Corresponding NRI=15.9% (p<0.001; pevents<0.001; pnon-events=0.54) in non-CKD group.

Discussion

This study shows that the addition of NT-proBNP with HFRV improves HF risk prediction in adults with and without CKD compared to a HFRV model without NT-proBNP. Adding eGFR to the model with HFRV+NT-proBNP model slightly improves NRI in adults with or without CKD.  Based on the Z scores for net reclassification, adding eGFR to a model which includes NT-proBNP and HFRV improves the risk classification of non-HF events in those with CKD and risk classification of HF events in those without CKD.  However, the addition of eGFR with NT-proBNP and HFRV does not change the C-statistic or likelihood-based measures indicating eGFR does not increase overall risk prediction of HF. 

To date, four major cohort studies have published HF risk scores [9,11,12,35]. The most recent risk score was developed in the MESA cohort.  Creatinine itself was examined as a potential variable in the MESA HF risk score but was not included in the final proposed risk score; cystatin C and eGFR were not studied. We applied this MESA HF risk score to the MESA cohort stratified by CKD status and studied the complementary prognostic role of NT-proBNP and eGFR. Incidence of HF was higher among participants with CKD, and a significant and inverse correlation existed between eGFR and NT-proBNP levels among both CKD and non-CKD groups.  We found that overall model fit based on the C-statistic was lower in MESA participants with CKD vs. those without CKD.  This is consistent with other previous studies showing that cardiovascular risk prediction models do not perform as well in populations with CKD compared to populations without CKD [34,36].

The MESA study did not include individuals with baseline clinical cardiovascular disease.  Flores and colleagues studied the prognostic value of cystatin C-based eGFR in patients with acute decompensated HF and found that the combination of NT-proBNP levels with cystatin C based eGFR predicted all cause death and HF readmissions better than either parameter alone [8]. Similarly, Van Kimmenade and colleagues observed that NT-proBNP combined with eGFR based on serum creatinine predicted 60-day mortality among patients with HF better than either parameter alone [10]. In both analyses, eGFR was dichotomized as <60 mL/min/1.73m2 and NT-proBNP was dichotomized along its median value.

In the acute setting, McCullough and colleagues observed a weak correlation between eGFR based on serum creatinine and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) [22]. In their study, eGFR was a significant and independent predictor of HF along with BNP, presence of a S3 gallop, and diabetes in a cohort of participants presenting to the emergency department with acute dyspnea.  However, approximately one-third of the participants had a history of HF and BNP was much more influential in the risk prediction model than eGFR. Similarly, investigators examining the interaction between eGFR and NT-proBNP levels in the ProBNP Investigation of Dyspnea in the Emergency Department (PRIDE) Study found log-transformed NT-proBNP concentrations to be the strongest predictor of 60-day death even with the inclusion of eGFR in the model [37].

The strengths of this study include the adjudication of all outcomes and the standardized measures of HFRV.  MESA also includes four racial/ethnic groups from six different sites across the United States.  This study has several limitations.  The observed effect of eGFR on risk prediction of incident HF may have been limited by the low number of events in the CKD group (n=39) and a narrow eGFR range with less than 10% of the adults with CKD having an eGFR<30ml/min/1.73 m2. It’s possible that eGFR may be more informative for predicting HF risk among adults with more advanced CKD. MESA also excluded individuals with morbid obesity limiting generalizability to many adults at high risk for HF. Our time period was limited to 5 years of follow-up because the MESA HF risk score was based on events over this time period.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we found that NT-proBNP was a significant predictor of HF regardless of CKD status and the inclusion of eGFR alone did not substantially improve HF risk stratification compared to HFRV plus NT-proBNP.  However, the addition of eGFR along with NT-proBNP to a model with traditional HFRV slightly improved HF risk reclassification compared to a model with HFRV plus NT-proBNP alone.  Future studies should examine other biomarkers to improve risk prediction of HF in adults with and without CKD.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the other investigators, the staff, and the participants of the MESA study for their valuable contributions. A full list of participating MESA investigators and institutions can be found at http://www.mesa-nhlbi.org.

Funding

This research was supported by contracts N01-HC-95159 through N01-HC-95169 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by grants UL1-RR-024156 and UL1-RR-025005 from NCRR.

References

  1. Ix JH, Shlipak MG, Chertow GM, Whooley MA (2007) Association of cystatin C with mortality, cardiovascular events, and incident heart failure among persons with coronary heart disease: data from the Heart and Soul Study. Circulation 115: 173-179. [Crossref]
  2. Sarnak MJ, Katz R, Stehman-Breen CO, Fried LF, Jenny NS, et al. (2005) Cystatin C concentration as a risk factor for heart failure in older adults. Ann Intern Med 142: 497-505. [Crossref]
  3. Sarnak MJ, Levey AS, Schoolwerth AC, Coresh J, Culleton B, et al. (2003) Kidney disease as a risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease: a statement from the American Heart Association Councils on Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, High Blood Pressure Research, Clinical Cardiology, and Epidemiology and Prevention. Circulation 108: 2154-2169. [Crossref]
  4. Weiner DE, Tighiouart H, Amin MG, Stark PC, MacLeod B, et al. (2004) Chronic kidney disease as a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality: a pooled analysis of community-based studies. J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 1307-1315. [Crossref]
  5. Weiner DE, Tabatabai S, Tighiouart H, Elsayed E, Bansal N, et al. (2006) Cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality: exploring the interaction between CKD and cardiovascular disease. Am J Kidney Dis 48: 392-401. [Crossref]
  6. Kottgen A, Russell SD, Loehr LR, Crainiceanu CM, Rosamond WD, et al. (2007) Reduced kidney function as a risk factor for incident heart failure: the atherosclerosis risk in communities (ARIC) study. J Am Soc Nephrol 18: 1307-1315. [Crossref]
  7. McCullough PA, Nowak RM, Foreback C, Tokarski G, Tomlanovich MC, et al. (2002) Emergency evaluation of chest pain in patients with advanced kidney disease. Arch Intern Med 162: 2464-2468. [Crossref]
  8. Flores-Blanco PJ, Manzano-Fernandez S, Perez-Calvo JI, Pastor-Perez FJ, Ruiz-Ruiz FJ, et al. (2015) Cystatin C-based CKD-EPI equations and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for predicting outcomes in acutely decompensated heart failure. Clin Cardiol 38: 106-113. [Crossref]
  9. Agarwal SK, Chambless LE, Ballantyne CM, Astor B, Bertoni AG, et al. (2012) Prediction of incident heart failure in general practice: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Circ Heart Fail 5: 422-429. [Crossref]
  10. van Kimmenade RR, Januzzi JL Jr, Baggish AL, Lainchbury JG, Bayes-Genis A, et al. (2006) Amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic Peptide, renal function, and outcomes in acute heart failure: redefining the cardiorenal interaction? J Am Coll Cardiol 48: 1621-1627. [Crossref]
  11. Chahal H, Bluemke DA, Wu CO, McClelland R, Liu K, et al. (2015) Heart failure risk prediction in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Heart 101: 58-64. [Crossref]
  12. Kannel WB, D'Agostino RB, Silbershatz H, Belanger AJ, Wilson PW, et al. (1999) Profile for estimating risk of heart failure. Arch Intern Med 159: 1197-1204. [Crossref]
  13. Weiner DE, Tighiouart H, Griffith JL, Elsayed E, Levey AS, et al. (2007) Kidney disease, Framingham risk scores, and cardiac and mortality outcomes. Am J Med 120: 552.e1-552.e8. [Crossref]
  14. Hallan S, Astor B, Romundstad S, Aasarod K, Kvenild K, et al. (2007) Association of kidney function and albuminuria with cardiovascular mortality in older vs younger individuals: The HUNT II Study. Arch Intern Med 167: 2490-2496. [Crossref]
  15. Palmer BF, Alpern RJ, Seldin DW (2008) Physiology and pathophysiology of sodium retention and wastage. In Seldin and Geibisch's The Kidney: Physiology and pathophysiology. 4th edition. Edited by Alpern Jr, Hebert SC. Burlington, MA: Academic Press 1005.
  16. Bibbins-Domingo K, Gupta R, Na B, Wu AH, Schiller NB, et al. (2007) N-terminal fragment of the prohormone brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), cardiovascular events, and mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. JAMA 297: 169-176. [Crossref]
  17. van Peet PG, Drewes YM, de Craen AJ, Gussekloo J, de Ruijter W (2013) NT-proBNP best predictor of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality in secondary prevention in very old age: the Leiden 85-plus Study. PLoS One 8: e81400. [Crossref]
  18. Mishra RK, Beatty AL, Jaganath R, Regan M, Wu AH, et al. (2014) B-type natriuretic peptides for the prediction of cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary heart disease: the Heart and Soul Study. J Am Heart Assoc 3: e000907. [Crossref]
  19. Shlipak MG, Ix JH, Bibbins-Domingo K, Lin F, Whooley MA (2008) Biomarkers to predict recurrent cardiovascular disease: the Heart and Soul Study. Am J Med 121: 50-57. [Crossref]
  20. Rehman SU, Martinez-Rumayor A, Mueller T, Januzzi JL Jr (2008) Independent and incremental prognostic value of multimarker testing in acute dyspnea: results from the ProBNP Investigation of Dyspnea in the Emergency Department (PRIDE) study. Clin Chim Acta 392: 41-45. [Crossref]
  21. Green SM, Martinez-Rumayor A, Gregory SA, Baggish AL, O'Donoghue ML, et al. (2008) Clinical uncertainty, diagnostic accuracy, and outcomes in emergency department patients presenting with dyspnea. Arch Intern Med 168: 741-748. [Crossref]
  22. McCullough PA, Duc P, Omland T, McCord J, Nowak RM, et al. (2003) B-type natriuretic peptide and renal function in the diagnosis of heart failure: an analysis from the Breathing Not Properly Multinational Study. Am J Kidney Dis 41: 571-579. [Crossref]
  23. Vickery S, Price CP, John RI, Abbas NA, Webb MC, et al. (2005) B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and amino-terminal proBNP in patients with CKD: relationship to renal function and left ventricular hypertrophy. Am J Kidney Dis 46: 610-620. [Crossref]
  24. van Kimmenade RR, Januzzi JL Jr, Bakker JA, Houben AJ, Rennenberg R, et al. (2009) Renal clearance of B-type natriuretic peptide and amino terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide a mechanistic study in hypertensive subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol 53: 884-890. [Crossref]
  25. DeFilippi C, van Kimmenade RR, Pinto YM (2008) Amino-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide testing in renal disease. Am J Cardiol 101: 82-88. [Crossref]
  26. Bild DE, Bluemke DA, Burke GL, Detrano R, Diez Roux AV, et al. (2002) Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis: Objectives and Design. Am J Epidemiol 156: 871-881. [Crossref]
  27. Daniels LB, Laughlin GA, Clopton P, Maisel AS, Barrett-Connor E (2008) Minimally elevated cardiac troponin T and elevated N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide predict mortality in older adults: results from the Rancho Bernardo Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 52: 450-459. [Crossref]
  28. Inker LA, Schmid CH, Tighiouart H, Eckfeldt JH, Feldman HI, et al. (2012) Estimating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C. N Engl J Med 367: 20-29.
  29. Bluemke DA, Kronmal RA, Lima JA, Liu K, Olson J, et al. (2008) The relationship of left ventricular mass and geometry to incident cardiovascular events: the MESA (Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 52: 2148-2155. [Crossref]
  30. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: A practical information-theoretic approach.  New York: Springer-Verlag.
  31. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference and prediction.   New York: Springer-Verlag.
  32. Janes H, Pepe MS, Gu W (2008) Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables. Ann Intern Med 149: 751-760. [Crossref]
  33. Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB S, D'Agostino RB Jr, Vasan RS (2008) Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 27: 157-172. [Crossref]
  34. Weiner DE, Tighiouart H, Elsayed EF, Griffith JL, Salem DN, et al. (2007) The Framingham predictive instrument in chronic kidney disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 50: 217-224. [Crossref]
  35. Butler J, Kalogeropoulos A, Georgiopoulou V, Belue R, Rodondi N, et al. (2008) Incident heart failure prediction in the elderly: the health ABC heart failure score. Circ Heart Fail 1: 125-133. [Crossref]
  36. Matsushita K, Ballew SH, Coresh J (2016) Cardiovascular risk prediction in people with chronic kidney disease. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 25: 518-523. [Crossref]
  37. Anwaruddin S, Lloyd-Jones DM, Baggish A, Chen A, Krauser D, et al. (2006) Renal function, congestive heart failure, and amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide measurement: results from the ProBNP Investigation of Dyspnea in the Emergency Department (PRIDE) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 47: 91-97. [Crossref]

Editorial Information

Editor-in-Chief

Massimo Fioranelli
Guglielmo Marconi University

Article Type

Research Article

Publication history

Received date: May 07, 2018
Accepted date: May 17, 2018
Published date: May 22, 2018

Copyright

© 2018 Syed D. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Citation

Syed D, Peshenko S, Liu K, Durazo-Arvizu R, Rosas SE, et al. (2018) Association between N-terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide levels, glomerular filtration rate, and heart failure in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. J Integr Cardiol 4: DOI: 10.15761/JIC.1000246

Corresponding author

Holly Kramer

Departments of Public Health Sciences and Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension, Loyola University Chicago, USA

E-mail : bhuvaneswari.bibleraaj@uhsm.nhs.uk

Table 1.  Baseline characteristics of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) participants by baseline Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Status.

 

Total (n=5,504)

CKD (n=325)

Non-CKD (n=5,179)

*P-value

Age (years)

62.3±10.3

73.0±8.0

61.6±10.1

<0.001

Sex (Male)

48.6%

43.1%

48.9%

0.04

Black

24.1%

22.8%

24.2%

0.6

White

39.4%

45.2%

39.0%

<0.001

Hispanic

23.1%

19.4%

23.4%

0.1

Chinese

13.4%

12.6%

13.5%

0.7

Smoking

12.6%

8.3%

12.9%

0.02

BMI (kg/m2)

28.2±5.4

28.5±5.4

28.2±5.4

0.3

Diabetes Mellitus

13.2%

19.9%

12.6%

<0.001

Heart rate (beats per minute)

63.1±9.7

63.6±11.2

63.1±9.6

0.3

SBP (mmHg)

126±21.4

139±25.0

126±20.9

<0.001

Hypertension

44.2%

78.2%

42.1%

<0.001

Blood pressure medication use

32.6%

64.6%

30.6%

<0.001

LDL (mg/dL)

117±31.4

116±33.5

117±31.2

0.74

HDL (mg/dL)

50.8±14.8

49.6±15.0

50.9±14.8

0.1

Cholesterol (mg/dL)

194±35.9

196±41.4

194±35.5

0.3

Lipid lowering medication use

16.1%

27.4%

15.4%

<0.001

†NT-proBNP (pg/mL)

50.7 (49.1, 52.3)

158.0 (140, 178)

47.2 (45.8, 48.7)

<0.001

Cystatin C (mg/L)

0.90±0.25

1.49±0.60

0.86±0.15

<0.001

Creatinine (mg/dL)

0.84±0.29

1.33±0.80

0.81±0.17

<0.001

Creatinine-cystatin C eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2)

89.8±18.4

48.8±11.0

92.4±15.5

<0.001

Heart failure

219 (3.98%)

39 (12.0%)

180 (3.48%)

<0.001

Data presented as mean ± standard deviation or frequency (%) unless otherwise noted.  *P-values compare CKD with Non-CKD groups.  Abbreviations: CKD = chronic kidney disease; BMI = body mass index; SBP = systolic blood pressure; LDL = low-density lipoprotein; HDL = high-density lipoprotein; †NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide shown as geometric mean (95% CI); eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate based on serum creatinine and cystatin C levels [28]. CKD defined as eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2.

Table 2. Risk factor characteristics by Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) status and by heart failure status in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.

 

Variables

CKD Group (n=325)

Non-CKD Group (n=5,179)

HF

(n=39)

No HF

(n=286)

P value

HF

(n=180)

No HF

(n=4,999)

P value

Age (years)

73.3±7.0

72.9±8.1

0.8

67.9±8.7

61.4±10.0

<0.001

Sex (Male)

64.1%

40.2%

0.005

60.0%

48.5%

0.002

BMI (kg/m2)

29.6±5.6

28.4±5.4

0.2

29.5±5.6

28.2±5.4

<0.001

Smoking

5.1%

8.7%

0.6

13.9%

12.8%

0.7

SBP (mmHg)

144±26.8

139±24.7

0.16

137±21.9

125±20.8

<0.001

Heart rate (bpm)

62.7±10.7

63.8±11.3

0.6

65.9±10.5

63.0±9.5

<0.001

Diabetes

35.9%

19.6%

0.02

31.7%

12%

<0.001

+NT-proBNP (pg/mL)

331 (215, 510)

143 (127, 161)

<0.001

126 (106, 149)

45.6 (44.2, 47.0)

<0.001

eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2)

46.6±12.2

49.2±10.8

0.2

86.2±15.0

92.6±15.5

<0.001

Data presented as mean ± SD or frequency (%) unless otherwise noted.  Abbreviations: CKD = chronic kidney disease; HF = heart failure; BMI = body mass index; SBP = systolic blood pressure; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate based on serum creatinine and cystatin C levels [28]; NT-proBNP = N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide; CKD defined as eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2;  +P values calculated by comparing mean values of log transformed NT-proBNP levels and values shown as geometric means (95% CI)

Table 3. Cox regression risk analysis for prediction of heart failure by Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) status in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (n=5504).

 

Univariate

Multivariable

 

HR (95% CI)

P Value

HR (95% CI)

P Value

Variable

Chronic Kidney Disease (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) (n=325)

Age (years)

1.01 (0.97, 1.06)

0.5

1.01 (0.96, 1.06)

0.8

Sex (Male)

2.67 (1.39, 5.14)

<0.001

3.14 (1.58, 6.25)

0.001

BMI (kg/m2)

1.04 (0.98, 1.10)

0.2

1.05 (0.99, 1.12)

0.1

Smoking status

0.65 (0.16, 2.71)

0.6

0.58 (0.13, 2.66)

0.5

SBP (mmHg)

1.01 (0.997, 1.02)

0.1

1.01 (0.99, 1.02)

0.4

Heart rate (bpm)

0.99 (0.97, 1.02)

0.7

1.01 (0.98, 1.04)

0.6

Diabetes

2.41 (1.25, 4.64)

0.01

1.56 (0.72, 3.35)

0.3

logNT-proBNP (pg/mL)

2.12 (1.63, 2.74)

<0.001

1.90 (1.47, 2.46)

<0.001

*eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2)

0.97 (0.95, 0.99)

0.04

0.99 (0.97, 1.02)

0.5

Variable

No Chronic Kidney Disease (eGFR 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) (n=5,179)

Age (years)

1.08 (1.06, 1.09)

<0.001

1.04 (1.02, 1.06)

<0.001

Sex (Male)

1.62 (1.20, 2.18)

0.002

2.68 (1.97, 3.66)

<0.001

BMI (kg/m2)

1.04 (1.02, 1.07)

0.001

1.05 (1.02, 1.08)

<0.001

Smoking status

1.15 (0.75, 1.75)

0.5

1.59 (1.03, 2.48)

0.04

SBP (mmHg)

1.02 (1.02, 1.03)

<0.001

1.01 (0.999, 1.01)

0.1

Heart rate (bpm)

1.03 (1.02, 1.05)

<0.001

1.04 (1.02, 1.05)

<0.001

Diabetes

3.53 (2.58, 4.83)

<0.001

2.42 (1.74, 3.37)

<0.001

logNT-proBNP (pg/mL)

2.42 (2.11, 2.78)

<0.001

2.36 (2.04, 2.73)

<0.001

*eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2)

0.97 (0.96, 0.98)

<0.001

0.99 (0.98, 1.004)

0.2

Data presented as Hazard Ratios (95% CI).  Abbreviations: CKD = chronic kidney disease; eGFR= estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated with serum creatinine and cystatin C; BMI = body mass index; SBP = systolic blood pressure; logNT-proBNP = log transformed N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. *eGFR and log transformed NT-proBNP were tested separately, and multivariable HRs and p values for other variables are from a model which included log transformed NT-proBNP and not eGFR.

Table 4.  Measures of model fit for prediction of heart failure with heart failure risk variables (HFRV) only or combined with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) or both among adults with and without Chronic Kidney Disease in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (n=5504).

 

HFRV

HFRV + eGFR

HFRV + NT-proBNP

HFRV + eGFR + NT-proBNP

Chronic Kidney Disease (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2) (n=325)

C-statistic (95% CI)

0.71 (0.64, 0.78)

0.73 (0.64, 0.78)

0.78 (0.71, 0.85)*

0.79 (0.71, 0.86)*

Log likelihood

-204.2

-204.0

-193.4

-192.1

Akaike Information Criterion

422.4

424.0

402.8

402.3

Bayes Information Criterion

448.8

454.2

433.0

436.3

Net Reclassification Index

Referent

6.53%

23.1%

28.8%*

Risk Stratification Capacity

64.3%

63.1%

77.8%

77.2%

No Chronic Kidney Disease (eGFR ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73 m2)(n=5,179)

C-statistic (95% CI)

0.77 (0.74, 0.80)

0.77 (0.74, 0.80)

0.83 (0.80, 0.85)*

0.83 (0.80, 0.85)*

Log likelihood

-1420.4

-1419.6

-1357.6

-1357.5

Akaike Information Criterion

2854.9

2855.2

2731.2

2733.1

Bayes Information Criterion

2900.7

2907.6

2783.6

2792.0

Net Reclassification Index

Referent

-0.46%

10.2%*

15.9%*

Risk Stratification Capacity

96.1%

96.2%

97.7%

96.8%

Abbreviations: eGFR= estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated with serum creatinine and cystatin C. [28]  Heart failure risk variables (HFRV) = age, sex, body mass index, smoking, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and diabetes.  *P < 0.05 compared with model with heart failure risk variables (HFRV) only.

Table 5. Reclassification table for events and nonevents comparing heart failure risk variable (HFRV) model with model adjusting for HFRV, log N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (logNTproBNP), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among adults with CKD.

 

 

HFRV + logNTproBNP + eGFR model

HFRV model

Events (n=39)

<5%

5-10%

>10%

Row Total

<5%

2

2

0

4

5-10%

8

8

11

27

>10%

1

0

7

8

Column Total

11

10

18

39

 

 

HFRV + logNTproBNP + eGFR model

HFRV

model

Non-Events (n=286)

<5%

5-10%

>10%

Row Total

<5%

135

16

2

153

5-10%

52

30

7

89

>10%

8

18

18

44

Column Total

195

64

27

286

 

Abbreviations: HFRV = heart failure risk variables (age, sex, body mass index, smoking, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and diabetes); logNTproBNP = log transformed N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; CKD = chronic kidney disease.  Each interior cell contains the number of persons in the corresponding risk categories under the old and new risk models.  Corresponding NRI = 28.8% (p=0.02; pevents=0.40; pnon-events<0.001) in CKD group.

Table 6.  Reclassification table for events and nonevents comparing heart failure risk variable (HFRV) model with model adjusting for HFRV, log N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (logNTproBNP), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) among adults without CKD.

 

 

HFRV + logNTproBNP + eGFR model

HFRV model

Events (n=180)

<5%

5-10%

>10%

Row Total

<5%

122

20

7

149

5-10%

5

6

12

23

>10%

3

2

3

8

Column Total

130

28

22

180

 

 

HFRV + logNTproBNP + eGFR model

HFRV

model

Non-Events (n=4,999)

<5%

5-10%

>10%

Row Total

<5%

4,682

92

15

4,789

5-10%

109

39

30

178

>10%

9

9

14

32

Column Total

4,800

140

59

4,999

Abbreviations: HFRV = heart failure risk variables (age, sex, body mass index, smoking, systolic blood pressure, heart rate, and diabetes); logNTproBNP = log transformed N-terminal brain natriuretic peptide; eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; CKD = chronic kidney disease.  Each interior cell contains the number of persons in the corresponding risk categories under the old and new risk models.  Corresponding NRI=15.9% (p<0.001; pevents<0.001; pnon-events=0.54) in non-CKD group.