marginally significantp = 0.05
However, when both PAD and NT-proBNP were considered as a categorical variable, NT-proBNP was not significantly associated with HFH (HR: 1.55, p = 0.242) while PAD was marginally significant (HR: 3.2, p = 0.05).
However, when both PAD and NT-proBNP were considered as a categorical variable, NT-proBNP was not significantly associated with HFH (HR: 1.55, p = 0.242) while PAD was marginally significant (HR: 3.2, p = 0.05).