Michelle M Y Chan1, Rajalakshmi Santhanakrishnan2, Jenny P C Chong3, Zhaojin Chen4, Bee Choo Tai5, Oi Wah Liew3, Tze Pin Ng6, Lieng H Ling6, David Sim7, Kui Toh G Leong8, Poh Shuan Daniel Yeo9, Hean-Yee Ong10, Fazlur Jaufeerally11, Raymond Ching-Chiew Wong12, Ping Chai12, Adrian F Low6, Arthur M Richards3,6, Carolyn S P Lam3,6,13. 1. SingHealth Internal Medicine Residency Program, Singapore Health Services, Singapore. 2. Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Cardiovascular Research Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 4. Investigational Medicine Unit, National University Health System Singapore, Singapore. 5. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 6. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore. 7. National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore. 8. Changi General Hospital, Singapore. 9. Tan Tock Seng Hospital and Apex Heart Clinic, Gleneagles Hospital, Singapore. 10. Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore. 11. Singapore General Hospital and Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore. 12. National University Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore. 13. Christchurch Heart Institute, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Abstract
AIM: Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) is a cytokine highly expressed in states of inflammatory stress. We aimed to study the clinical correlates and prognostic significance of plasma GDF15 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs. reduced ejection fraction(HFrEF), compared with N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), an indicator of haemodynamic wall stress. METHODS: Plasma GDF15 and NT-proBNP were prospectively measured in 916 consecutive patients with HFrEF (EF <50%; n = 730) and HFpEF (EF ≥50%; n = 186), and measured again at 6 months in 488 patients. Patients were followed up for a composite outcome of death or first HF rehospitalization. RESULTS: Median GDF15baseline values were similarly elevated in HFpEF [2862 (1812 represent the 25th percentile and 4176 represent the 75th percentile) ng/L] and HFrEF [2517 (1555, 4030) ng/L] (P = 0.184), whereas NT-proBNP was significantly lower in HFpEF than HFrEF (1119 ng/L vs. 2335 ng/L, P < 0.001). Independent correlates of GDF15baseline were age, systolic blood pressure, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, sodium, haemoglobin, creatinine, diuretic therapy, high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and NT-proBNP (all P < 0.05). During a median follow-up of 23 months, there were 379 events (307 HFrEF, 72 HFpEF). GDF15 remained a significant independent predictor for composite outcome even after adjusting for important clinical predictors including hsTnT and NT-proBNP (adjusted hazard ratio 1.76 per 1 Ln U, 95% confidence interval 1.39-2.21; P < 0.001), regardless of HF group (Pinteraction = 0.275). GDF15baseline provided incremental prognostic value when added to clinical predictors, hsTnT and NT-proBNP (area under receiver operating characteristic curve increased from 0.720 to 0.740, P < 0.019), with a net reclassification improvement of 0.183 (P = 0.004). Patients with ≥20% GDF156months increase had higher risk for composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.15-2.45; P = 0.007) compared with those with GDF156months within ± 20% of baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The similarly elevated levels and independent prognostic utility of GDF15 in HFrEF and HFpEF suggest that beyond haemodynamic stress (NT-proBNP), inflammatory injury (GDF15) may play an important role in both HF syndromes.
AIM: Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) is a cytokine highly expressed in states of inflammatory stress. We aimed to study the clinical correlates and prognostic significance of plasma GDF15 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) vs. reduced ejection fraction(HFrEF), compared with N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), an indicator of haemodynamic wall stress. METHODS: Plasma GDF15 and NT-proBNP were prospectively measured in 916 consecutive patients with HFrEF (EF <50%; n = 730) and HFpEF (EF ≥50%; n = 186), and measured again at 6 months in 488 patients. Patients were followed up for a composite outcome of death or first HF rehospitalization. RESULTS: Median GDF15baseline values were similarly elevated in HFpEF [2862 (1812 represent the 25th percentile and 4176 represent the 75th percentile) ng/L] and HFrEF [2517 (1555, 4030) ng/L] (P = 0.184), whereas NT-proBNP was significantly lower in HFpEF than HFrEF (1119 ng/L vs. 2335 ng/L, P < 0.001). Independent correlates of GDF15baseline were age, systolic blood pressure, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, sodium, haemoglobin, creatinine, diuretic therapy, high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and NT-proBNP (all P < 0.05). During a median follow-up of 23 months, there were 379 events (307 HFrEF, 72 HFpEF). GDF15 remained a significant independent predictor for composite outcome even after adjusting for important clinical predictors including hsTnT and NT-proBNP (adjusted hazard ratio 1.76 per 1 Ln U, 95% confidence interval 1.39-2.21; P < 0.001), regardless of HF group (Pinteraction = 0.275). GDF15baseline provided incremental prognostic value when added to clinical predictors, hsTnT and NT-proBNP (area under receiver operating characteristic curve increased from 0.720 to 0.740, P < 0.019), with a net reclassification improvement of 0.183 (P = 0.004). Patients with ≥20% GDF156months increase had higher risk for composite outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.15-2.45; P = 0.007) compared with those with GDF156months within ± 20% of baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The similarly elevated levels and independent prognostic utility of GDF15 in HFrEF and HFpEF suggest that beyond haemodynamic stress (NT-proBNP), inflammatory injury (GDF15) may play an important role in both HF syndromes.
Authors: Abhinav Sharma; Susanna R Stevens; Joseph Lucas; Mona Fiuzat; Kirkwood F Adams; David J Whellan; Mark P Donahue; Dalane W Kitzman; Ileana L Piña; Faiez Zannad; William E Kraus; Christopher M O'Connor; G Michael Felker Journal: JACC Heart Fail Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 12.035
Authors: Hilde M Norum; Kaspar Broch; Annika E Michelsen; Ida G Lunde; Tove Lekva; Aurelija Abraityte; Christen P Dahl; Arnt E Fiane; Arne K Andreassen; Geir Christensen; Svend Aakhus; Pål Aukrust; Lars Gullestad; Thor Ueland Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Christina Christersson; Tomasz Baron; Frank Flachskampf; Lars Lindhagen; Bertil Lindahl; Agneta Siegbahn Journal: J Cardiovasc Transl Res Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Mustafa Umut Somuncu; Fatih Pasa Tatar; Belma Kalayci; Ahmet Avci; Naile Eris Gudul; Begum Uygur; Ali Riza Demir; Murat Can Journal: Acta Cardiol Sin Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 2.672