Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide cut-off values for risk stratification of pulmonary embolism

Open access
Lankeit, Mareike, Jiménez, David, Kostrubiec, Maciej, Dellas, Claudia, Kuhnert, Katherina, Hasenfuß, Gerd, Pruszczyk, Piotr, Konstantinides, Stavros·2014·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

The optimal N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) cut-off value for risk stratification of pulmonary embolism remains controversial. In this study we validated and compared different proposed NT-proBNP cut-off values in 688 normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism. During the first 30 days, 28 (4.1%) patients reached the primary outcome (pulmonary embolism-related death or complications) and 29 (4.2%) patients died. Receiver operating characteristic analysis yielded an area under the curve of 0.70 (0.60–0.80) for NT-proBNP. A cut-off value of 600 pg·mL −1 was associated with the best prognostic performance (sensitivity 86% and specificity 50%) and the highest odds ratio (6.04 (95% CI 2.07–17.59), p=0.001) compared to the cut-off values of 1000, 500 or 300 pg·mL −1 . Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, NT-proBNP ≥600 pg·mL −1 had a prognostic impact on top of that of the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index and right ventricular dysfunction on echocardiography (OR 4.27 (95% CI 1.22–15.01); p=0.024, c-index 0.741). The use of a stepwise approach based on the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index, NT-proBNP ≥600 pg·mL −1 and echocardiography helped optimise risk assessment. Our findings confirm the prognostic value of NT-proBNP and suggest that a cut-off value of 600 pg·mL −1 is most appropriate for risk stratification of normotensive patients with pulmonary embolism. NT-proBNP should be used in combination with a clinical score and an imaging procedure for detecting right ventricular dysfunction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1183/09031936.00211613

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 170

Metadata

Authors
Lankeit, M., Jiménez, D., Kostrubiec, M., Dellas, C., Kuhnert, K., Hasenfuß, G., Pruszczyk, P., & Konstantinides, S.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2014-03-13
Volume
43
Issue
6
Pages
1669-1677
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W2131565632
Cited by
170
References
1
FWCI
13.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Validation of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide cut-off values for risk stratification of pulmonary embolism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.00211613
The paper
Lankeit, M., Jiménez, D., Kostrubiec, M., Dellas, C., Kuhnert, K., Hasenfuß, G., Pruszczyk, P., & Konstantinides, S. (2014). Validation of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide cut-off values for risk stratification of pulmonary embolism. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00211613

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.