Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:932 (18 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7420.932-b
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORRecent guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) on heart failure recommend measuring natriuretic peptide concentration in patients with suspected heart failure, in addition to electrocardiography to exclude heart failure.1 2 However, normal results on electrocardiography and chest radiography make heart failure highly unlikely.
Low concentrations of natriuretic peptides also make the diagnosis of heart failure unlikely, and what is gained in addition to the information from a normal electrocardiogram, which has a negative predictive value ranging from 77% to 97% depending on the cut-off point and background risk, is unclear. Even if the natriuretic peptide increased negative predictive value from 97%3 to 100%, is a 3% increase worth the additional cost and would it improve management?
A study of referrals of patients with symptoms also casts doubt on the advantages of natriuretic peptide testing, as does a study after myocardial infarction.4 In people who have an
John Robson, general practitioner
Department of General Practice, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS jrobson@qmul.ac.uk
Read all Rapid Responses