Dataset Information

Predictive value of plasma galectin-3 levels in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

galectin-3 is an emerging biomarker which has been studied in relatively small heart failure (HF) cohorts with predominantly systolic HF. We studied the prognostic value of base-line galectin-3 in a large HF cohort, with preserved and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and compared this to other biomarkers.

Methods

we studied 592 HF patients who had been hospitalized for HF and were followed for 18 months. The primary end-point was a composite of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization.

Results

a doubling of galectin-3 levels was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.97 (1.62-2.42) for the primary outcome (P < 0.001). After correction for age, gender, BNP, eGFR, and diabetes the HR was 1.38 (1.07-1.78; P = 0.015). Galectin-3 levels were correlated with higher IL-6 and CRP levels (P < 0.002). Changes of galectin-3 levels after 6 months did not add prognostic information to the base-line value (n = 291); however, combining plasma galectin-3 and BNP levels increased prognostic value over either biomarker alone (ROC analysis, P < 0.05). The predictive value of galectin-3 was stronger in patients with preserved LVEF (n = 114) compared to patients with reduced LVEF (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

galectin-3 is an independent marker for outcome in HF and appears to be particularly useful in HF patients with preserved LVEF.

SUBMITTER: de Boer RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3028573 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictive value of plasma galectin-3 levels in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

de Boer Rudolf A RA Lok Dirk J A DJ Jaarsma Tiny T van der Meer Peter P Voors Adriaan A AA Hillege Hans L HL van Veldhuisen Dirk J DJ

Annals of medicine 20101228 1

<h4>Aims</h4>galectin-3 is an emerging biomarker which has been studied in relatively small heart failure (HF) cohorts with predominantly systolic HF. We studied the prognostic value of base-line galectin-3 in a large HF cohort, with preserved and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and compared this to other biomarkers.<h4>Methods</h4>we studied 592 HF patients who had been hospitalized for HF and were followed for 18 months. The primary end-point was a composite of all-cause mor ...[more]

PMID: 21189092

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHeart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is an increasing public health concern. Currently, data regarding the clinical application value of plasma Galectin-3 (Gal-3) in HFpEF are contradictory. Therefore, we performed the following meta-analysis to appraise the clinical implications of serum Gal-3 in HFpEF, including its capacity to predict new-onset disease, long-term unfavorable endpoints, and the degree of cardiac structural abnormality and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were retrieved exhaustively from their inception until November 30, 2021, to obtain studies assessing the correlation between plasma Gal-3 and the clinical features of HFpEF (new-onset HFpEF, adverse outcomes, and echocardiographic parameters related to abnormal cardiac structure and LVDD).ResultsA total of 24 papers containing 27 studies were ultimately included in the present research. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that high plasma Gal-3 levels are strongly associated with the following clinical characteristics of HFpEF: (i) the increased risk of new-onset HFpEF (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.04-1.19; p = 0.910, I2 = 0%; P = 0.002); (ii) the high risk of adverse outcomes of HFpEF patients [all-cause death (HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.27-1.87; p = 0.138, I2 = 42%; P = 0.000) and the composite events [all-cause death and HF hospitalization (HR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.30-1.74; p = 0.001, I2 = 61%; P = 0.000) or cardiovascular (CV) death and HF hospitalization (HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.51-1.94; p = 0.036, I2 = 58%; P = 0.000)]; (iii) echocardiographic indices [E/e ratio (r: 0.425, 95% CI: 0.184-0.617; p = 0.000, I2 = 93%; P = 0.001) and DT (r: 0.502, 95% CI: 0.061-0.779; p = 0.001 I2 = 91%; P = 0.027)].ConclusionsPlasma Gal-3 might be employed as an additional predictor for new-onset HFpEF, the adverse prognosis in HFpEF patients (all-cause death, the composite endpoints of all-cause death and HF hospitalization or CV death and HF hospitalization), and the severity of LVDD in HFpEF populations.

Project description:Aims: HFA-PEFF score has been proposed for diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Currently, there are only a limited number of tools for predicting the prognosis. In this study, we evaluated whether the HFA-PEFF score can predict mortality in patients with HFpEF. Methods: This single-center, retrospective observational study enrolled patients diagnosed with HFpEF at the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University between January 1, 2015, and April 30, 2018. The subjects were divided according to their HFA-PEFF score into low (0-2 points), intermediate (3-4 points), and high (5-6 points) score groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 358 patients (mean age: 70.21 ± 8.64 years, 58.1% female) were included. Of these, 63 (17.6%), 156 (43.6%), and 139 (38.8%) were classified into the low, intermediate, and high score groups, respectively. Over a mean follow-up of 26.9 months, 46 patients (12.8%) died. The percentage of patients who died in the low, intermediate, and high score groups were 1 (1.6%), 18 (11.5%), and 27 (19.4%), respectively. A multivariate Cox regression identified HFA-PEFF score as an independent predictor of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR):1.314, 95% CI: 1.013-1.705, P = 0.039]. A Cox analysis demonstrated a significantly higher rate of mortality in the intermediate (HR: 4.912, 95% CI 1.154-20.907, P = 0.031) and high score groups (HR: 5.291, 95% CI: 1.239-22.593, P = 0.024) than the low score group. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated that the HFA-PEFF score can effectively predict all-cause mortality after adjusting for age and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class [area under the curve (AUC) 0.726, 95% CI 0.651-0.800, P = 0.000]. With an HFA-PEFF score cut-off value of 3.5, the sensitivity and specificity were 78.3 and 54.8%, respectively. The AUC on ROC analysis for the biomarker component of the score was similar to that of the total score. Conclusions: The HFA-PEFF score can be used both to diagnose HFpEF and predict the prognosis. The higher scores are associated with higher all-cause mortality.

Project description:BackgroundMicrovascular dysfunction plays an important role in the pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, no mechanistic link between systemic microvasculature and congestion, a central feature of the syndrome, has yet been investigated.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate capillary-interstitium fluid exchange in HFpEF, including lymphatic drainage and the potential osmotic forces exerted by any hypertonic tissue Na+ excess.MethodsPatients with HFpEF and healthy control subjects of similar age and sex distributions (n = 16 per group) underwent: 1) a skin biopsy for vascular immunohistochemistry, gene expression, and chemical (water, Na+, and K+) analyses; and 2) venous occlusion plethysmography to assess peripheral microvascular filtration coefficient (measuring capillary fluid extravasation) and isovolumetric pressure (above which lymphatic drainage cannot compensate for fluid extravasation).ResultsSkin biopsies in patients with HFpEF showed rarefaction of small blood and lymphatic vessels (p = 0.003 and p = 0.012, respectively); residual skin lymphatics showed a larger diameter (p = 0.007) and lower expression of lymphatic differentiation and function markers (LYVE-1 [lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor 1]: p < 0.05; PROX-1 [prospero homeobox protein 1]: p < 0.001) compared with control subjects. In patients with HFpEF, microvascular filtration coefficient was lower (calf: 3.30 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.33 to 3.88] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 4.66 [IQR: 3.70 to 6.15] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p < 0.01; forearm: 5.16 [IQR: 3.86 to 5.43] l × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1 vs. 5.66 [IQR: 4.69 to 8.38] μl × 100 ml of tissue-1 × min-1 × mm Hg-1; p > 0.05), in keeping with blood vascular rarefaction and the lack of any observed hypertonic skin Na+ excess, but the lymphatic drainage was impaired (isovolumetric pressure in patients with HFpEF vs. control subjects: calf 16 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 22 ± 4 mm Hg; p < 0.005; forearm 17 ± 4 mm Hg vs. 25 ± 5 mm Hg; p < 0.001).ConclusionsPeripheral lymphatic vessels in patients with HFpEF exhibit structural and molecular alterations and cannot effectively compensate for fluid extravasation and interstitial accumulation by commensurate drainage. Reduced lymphatic reserve may represent a novel therapeutic target.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The pathophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains incompletely defined. We aimed to characterize HFpEF compared to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and asymptomatic hypertensive or non-hypertensive controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Prospective, observational study of 234 subjects (HFpEF n = 140; HFrEF n = 46, controls n = 48, age 73±8, males 49%) who underwent echocardiography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), plasma biomarker analysis (panel of 22) and 6-minute walk testing (6MWT). The primary end-point was the composite of all-cause mortality and/or HF hospitalization. RESULTS:Compared to controls both HF groups had lower exercise capacity, lower left ventricular (LV) EF, higher LV filling pressures (E/E', B-type natriuretic peptide [BNP], left atrial [LA] volumes), more right ventricular (RV) systolic dysfunction, more focal and diffuse fibrosis and higher levels of all plasma markers. LV remodeling (mass/volume) was different between HFpEF (concentric, 0.68±0.16) and HFrEF (eccentric, 0.47±0.15); p<0.0001. Compared to controls, HFpEF was characterized by (mild) reductions in LVEF, more myocardial fibrosis, LA remodeling/dysfunction and RV dysfunction. HFrEF patients had lower LVEF, increased LV volumes, greater burden of focal and diffuse fibrosis, more RV remodeling, lower LAEF and higher LA volumes compared to HFpEF. Inflammatory/fibrotic/renal dysfunction plasma markers were similarly elevated in both HF groups but markers of cardiomyocyte stretch/damage (BNP, pro-BNP, N-terminal pro-atrial natriuretic peptide and troponin-I) were higher in HFrEF compared to HFpEF; p<0.0001. Focal fibrosis was associated with galectin3, GDF-15, MMP-3, MMP-7, MMP-8, BNP, pro-BNP and NTproANP; p<0.05. Diffuse fibrosis was associated with GDF-15, Tenascin-C, MMP-2, MMP-3, MMP-7, BNP, proBNP and NTproANP; p<0.05. Composite event rates (median 1446 days follow-up) did not differ between HFpEF and HFrEF (Log-Rank p = 0.784). CONCLUSIONS:HFpEF is a distinct pathophysiological entity compared to age- and sex-matched HFrEF and controls. HFpEF and HFrEF are associated with similar adverse outcomes. Inflammation is common in both HF phenotypes but cardiomyocyte stretch/stress is greater in HFrEF.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This study aimed to compare the independent and incremental prognostic value of peak oxygen consumption (VO2) and minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) in heart failure (HF) with preserved (HFpEF), midrange (HFmEF), and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS:In 195 HFpEF (LVEF ?50%), 144 HFmEF (LVEF 40-49%), and 630 HFrEF (LVEF <40%) patients, we assessed the association of cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables with the composite outcome of death, left ventricular assist device implantation, or heart transplantation (256 events; median follow-up of 4.2 years), and 2-year incident HF hospitalization (244 events). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, greater association with outcomes in HFpEF than HFrEF were noted with peak VO2 (HR [95% confidence interval]: 0.76 [0.67-0.87] versus 0.87 [0.83-0.90] for the composite outcome, Pinteraction=0.052; 0.77 [0.69-0.86] versus 0.92 [0.88-0.95], respectively for HF hospitalization, Pinteraction=0.003) and VE/VCO2 slope (1.11 [1.06-1.17] versus 1.04 [1.03-1.06], respectively for the composite outcome, Pinteraction=0.012; 1.10 [1.05-1.15] versus 1.04 [1.03-1.06], respectively for HF hospitalization, Pinteraction=0.019). In HFmEF, peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope were associated with the composite outcome (0.79 [0.70-0.90] and 1.12 [1.05-1.19], respectively), while only peak VO2 was related to HF hospitalization (0.81 [0.72-0.92]). In HFpEF and HFrEF, peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope provided incremental prognostic value beyond clinical variables based on the C-statistic, net reclassification improvement, and integrated diagnostic improvement, with models containing both measures demonstrating the greatest incremental value. CONCLUSIONS:Both peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope provided incremental value beyond clinical characteristics and LVEF for predicting outcomes in HFpEF. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing variables provided greater risk discrimination in HFpEF than HFrEF.

Dataset Information

Predictive value of plasma galectin-3 levels in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Predictive value of plasma galectin-3 levels in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets