Francis G Spinale1, Timothy E Meyer2, Craig M Stolen2, Jennifer E Van Eyk3, Michael R Gold4, Suneet Mittal5, Stacia M DeSantis6, Nicholas Wold2, John F Beshai7, Kenneth M Stein2, Kenneth A Ellenbogen8. 1. Cardiovascular Translational Research Center, University of South Carolina School of Medicine and Dorn VA Medical Center, Columbia, South Carolina; Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Electronic address: cvctrc@uscmed.sc.edu. 2. Boston Scientific, St. Paul, Minnesota. 3. Departments of Medicine, Biol. Chem and Biomed. Eng, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. 5. The Valley Hospital Health System, Ridgewood, New Jersey. 6. Cardiovascular Translational Research Center, University of South Carolina School of Medicine and Dorn VA Medical Center, Columbia, South Carolina. 7. Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona. 8. Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Predicting a favorable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response holds great clinical importance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine proteins from broad biological pathways and develop a prediction tool for response to CRT. METHODS: Plasma was collected from patients before CRT (SMART-AV [SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy] trial). A CRT response was prespecified as a ≥15-mL reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months, which resulted in a binary CRT response (responders 52%, nonresponders 48%; n = 758). RESULTS: Candidate proteins (n = 74) were evaluated from the inflammatory, signaling, and structural domains, which yielded 12 candidate biomarkers, but only a subset of these demonstrated predictive value for CRT response: soluble suppressor of tumorgenicity-2, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor-II, matrix metalloproteinase-2, and C-reactive protein. These biomarkers were used in a composite categorical scoring algorithm (Biomarker CRT Score), which identified patients with a high/low probability of a response to CRT (P <.001) when adjusted for a number of clinical covariates. For example, a Biomarker CRT Score of 0 yielded 5 times higher odds of a response to CRT compared to a Biomarker CRT Score of 4 (P <.001). The Biomarker CRT Score demonstrated additive predictive value when considered against a composite of clinical variables. CONCLUSION: These unique findings demonstrate that developing a biomarker panel for predicting individual response to CRT is feasible and holds potential for point-of-care testing and integration into evaluation algorithms for patients presenting for CRT.
BACKGROUND: Predicting a favorable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response holds great clinical importance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine proteins from broad biological pathways and develop a prediction tool for response to CRT. METHODS: Plasma was collected from patients before CRT (SMART-AV [SmartDelay Determined AV Optimization: A Comparison to Other AV Delay Methods Used in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy] trial). A CRT response was prespecified as a ≥15-mL reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume at 6 months, which resulted in a binary CRT response (responders 52%, nonresponders 48%; n = 758). RESULTS: Candidate proteins (n = 74) were evaluated from the inflammatory, signaling, and structural domains, which yielded 12 candidate biomarkers, but only a subset of these demonstrated predictive value for CRT response: soluble suppressor of tumorgenicity-2, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor-II, matrix metalloproteinase-2, and C-reactive protein. These biomarkers were used in a composite categorical scoring algorithm (Biomarker CRT Score), which identified patients with a high/low probability of a response to CRT (P <.001) when adjusted for a number of clinical covariates. For example, a Biomarker CRT Score of 0 yielded 5 times higher odds of a response to CRT compared to a Biomarker CRT Score of 4 (P <.001). The Biomarker CRT Score demonstrated additive predictive value when considered against a composite of clinical variables. CONCLUSION: These unique findings demonstrate that developing a biomarker panel for predicting individual response to CRT is feasible and holds potential for point-of-care testing and integration into evaluation algorithms for patients presenting for CRT.
Authors: Michael R Bristow; Leslie A Saxon; John Boehmer; Steven Krueger; David A Kass; Teresa De Marco; Peter Carson; Lorenzo DiCarlo; David DeMets; Bill G White; Dale W DeVries; Arthur M Feldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nicolas Lellouche; Carlos De Diego; David A Cesario; Marmar Vaseghi; Barbara Natterson Horowitz; Aman Mahajan; Isaac Wiener; Noel G Boyle; Gregg C Fonarow; Kalyanam Shivkumar Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2006-11-20 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: John G F Cleland; Jean-Claude Daubert; Erland Erdmann; Nick Freemantle; Daniel Gras; Lukas Kappenberger; Luigi Tavazzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Rudolf Berger; Aparna Shankar; Friedrich Fruhwald; Astrid Fahrleitner-Pammer; Nick Freemantle; Luigi Tavazzi; John G F Cleland; Richard Pacher Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-06-02 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Johan Sundström; Jane C Evans; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy; Martin G Larson; Douglas B Sawyer; Deborah A Siwik; Wilson S Colucci; Peter W F Wilson; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Marleen H M Hessel; Gabe B Bleeker; Jeroen J Bax; Maureen M Henneman; Brigit den Adel; Margreet Klok; M J Schalij; Douwe E Atsma; Arnoud van der Laarse Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2007-08-28 Impact factor: 15.534
Authors: Josef Halamek; Pavel Leinveber; Ivo Viscor; Radovan Smisek; Filip Plesinger; Vlastimil Vondra; Jolana Lipoldova; Magdalena Matejkova; Pavel Jurak Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240