Clinical features and outcomes of 2019 novel coronavirus-infected patients with high plasma BNP levels

  1. Youbin Liu
  2. Dehui Liu
  3. Huafeng Song
  4. Chunlin Chen
  5. Mingfang Lv
  6. Xing Pei
  7. Zhongwei Hu
  8. Zhihui Qin
  9. Jinglong Li

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Aims

To explore clinical features and outcome of 2019 novel coronavirus(2019-nCoV)-infected patients with high BNP levels

Methods and results

Data were collected from patients’ medical records, and we defined high BNP according to the plasma BNP was above > 100 pg/mL. In total,34 patients with corona virus disease 2019(COVID-19)were included in the analysis. Ten patients had high plasma BNP level. The median age for these patients was 60.5 years(interquartile range, 40-80y), and 6/10 (60%) were men. Underlying comorbidities in some patients were coronary heart disease (n=2, 20%), hypertesion (n=3,30%), heart failure (n=1,10%)and diabetes (n=2, 20%). Six (60%) patients had a history of Wuhan exposure. The most common symptoms at illness onset in patients were fever (n=7, 70%), cough (n=3, 30%), headache or fatigue(n=4,40%). These patients had higher aspartate aminotransferase(AST), troponin I, C reactive protein and lower hemoglobin, and platelet count,compared with patients with normal BNP, respectively. Compared with patients with normal BNP, patients with high BNP were more likely to develop severe pneumonia, and receive tracheal cannula, invasive mechanical ventilation, continuous renal replacement therapy, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and be admitted to the intensive care unit. One patient with high BNP died during the study.

Conclusion

High BNP is a common condition among patients infected with 2019-nCoV. Patients with high BNP showed poor clinical outcomes

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.03.31.20047142: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: the ethics commissions of the Guangzhou Eighth people’s hospital has approved this study, with a waiver of informed consent.
    Consent: the ethics commissions of the Guangzhou Eighth people’s hospital has approved this study, with a waiver of informed consent.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    SPSS 25.0 (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY, USA) were used to perform All analyses and a two-tailed p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.03.31.20047142v1 on medRxiv