Dataset Information

Association of a Novel Diagnostic Biomarker, the Plasma Cardiac Bridging Integrator 1 Score, With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Cardiovascular Hospitalization.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Transverse tubule remodeling is a hallmark of heart failure. Cardiac bridging integrator 1 (cBIN1) is a circulating membrane scaffolding protein that is essential for transverse tubule health, and its plasma level declines with disease.

Objective

To determine if a cBIN1-derived score can serve as a diagnostic biomarker of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

Design, setting, and participants

In this cohort study, the cBIN1 score (CS) was determined from enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay-measured plasma cBIN1 concentrations from study participants in an ambulatory heart failure clinic at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Consecutive patients with a confirmed diagnosis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%) were recruited from July 2014 to November 2015 and compared with age-matched and sex-matched healthy volunteers with no known cardiovascular diagnoses and participants with risk factors for heart failure but no known HFpEF. Baseline characteristics and 1-year longitudinal clinical information were obtained through electronic medical records. Data analysis occurred from November 2016 to November 2017.

Main outcomes and measures

The analysis examined the ability of the CS and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) results to differentiate among patients with HFpEF, healthy control participants, and control participants with risk factors for heart failure. We further explored the association of the CS with future cardiovascular hospitalizations.

Results

A total of 52 consecutive patients with a confirmed diagnosis of HFpEF were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 57 [15] years; 33 [63%] male). The CS values are significantly higher in the patients with HFpEF (median [interquartile range (IQR)], 1.85 [1.51-2.28]) than in the 2 control cohorts (healthy control participants: median [IQR], -0.03 [-0.48 to 0.41]; control participants with risk factors only: median [IQR], -0.08 [-0.75 to 0.42]; P < .001). For patients with HFpEF, the CS outperforms NT-proBNP when the comparator group was either healthy control participants (CS: area under curve [AUC], 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-1.00]; NT-proBNP level: AUC, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; P < .001) or those with risk factors (CS: AUC, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97-1.00]; NT-proBNP: AUC, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.88-0.99]; P < .001). Kaplan-Meier analysis of 1-year cardiovascular hospitalizations adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and NT-proBNP levels reveals that patients with HFpEF with CS greater than or equal to 1.80 have a hazard ratio of 3.8 (95% CI, 1.3-11.2; P = .02) for hospitalizations compared with those with scores less than 1.80.

Conclusions and relevance

If further validated, the plasma CS, a marker of transverse tubule dysfunction, may serve as a biomarker of cardiomyocyte remodeling that has the potential to aide in the diagnosis of HFpEF.

SUBMITTER: Nikolova AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6583707 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsWe sought to compare the generalizability and prognostic implications of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) scores (HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score) in Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT) and Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibition to Improve Clinical Status and Exercise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) trial participants and matched controls from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Community (ARIC) study.Methods and resultsBased on the respective scores, the study participants from the TOPCAT (N = 356), RELAX (N = 216), and ARIC (N = 379) studies were categorized as having a low, intermediate, or high likelihood of HFpEF. Age, sex, and race matched controls free of cardiovascular disease who had unexplained dyspnoea were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance. The prognostic value of scores was assessed using multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses. The median HFA-PEFF scores in the TOPCAT, RELAX, and ARIC studies were 5.0 [interquartile range (IQR): 5.0-6.0], 4.0 (IQR: 2.0-4.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-4.0), respectively. The median H2 FPEF scores in the three studies were 5.5 (IQR: 4.0-7.0), 6.0 (IQR: 4.0-7.0), and 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-5.0), respectively. A low HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score can rule out HFpEF with high sensitivity (99.5% and 99.6%, respectively) and negative predictive value (95.7% and 98.3%, respectively). A high HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score can rule-in HFpEF with good specificity (82.8% and 95.6%, respectively) and positive predictive value (79.9% and 90.4%, respectively). Among TOPCAT participants, the hazard for adverse cardiovascular events per point increase in HFA-PEFF and H2 FPEF score was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.63) and 1.01 (95% confidence interval: 0.88-1.15), respectively. A higher H2 FPEF score was associated with lower peak oxygen intake in RELAX trial participants (adjusted P = 0.01).ConclusionsThe HFA-PEFF and the H2 FPEF scores are reliable diagnostic tools for HFpEF. The prognostic utility of HFpEF scores requires further validation in larger rigorously phenotyped populations.