| Literature DB >> 33928704 |
Anne G Raafs1, Job A J Verdonschot1,2, Michiel T H M Henkens1, Bouke P Adriaans1,3, Ping Wang2, Kasper Derks2, Myrurgia A Abdul Hamid4, Christian Knackstedt1, Vanessa P M van Empel1, Javier Díez5,6,7, Hans-Peter Brunner-La Rocca1, Han G Brunner2,8, Arantxa González5,6, Sebastiaan C A M Bekkers1, Stephane R B Heymans1,9,10, Mark R Hazebroek1.
Abstract
AIMS: To determine the prognostic value of multilevel assessment of fibrosis in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) patients. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Endomyocardial biopsy; Fibrosis; Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy; Late gadolinium enhancement; PICP; PIIINP
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33928704 PMCID: PMC8362085 DOI: 10.1002/ejhf.2201
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Heart Fail ISSN: 1388-9842 Impact factor: 15.534
Figure 1Example of a patient with late gadolinium enhancement on cardiac magnetic resonance and corresponding histology. (A) Cardiac magnetic resonance image in short‐axis view with visible inferoseptal late gadolinium enhancement. (B) Sirius red staining corresponding to 17% of total endomyocardial biopsy.
Demographic, clinical and biochemical characteristics at baseline in all patients and in patients classified according to non‐invasive fibrosis assessment using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and serum carboxy‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type I
| Total ( | LGE− ( | LGE+ ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | ||||
| Age at diagnosis (years) | 54 ± 13 (18–80) | 54 ± 13 | 54 ± 12 | NS |
| Male sex | 136/209 (65%) | 93/144 (65%) | 43/65 (66%) | NS |
| Heart rate (bpm) | 75 ± 17 | 72 ± 13 | 76 ± 15 | NS |
| Hypertension | 84/209 (40%) | 56/144 (39%) | 28/65 (43%) | NS |
| Diabetes mellitus | 21/209 (10%) | 16/144 (11%) | 5/65 (8%) | NS |
| Atrial fibrillation | 52/209 (25%) | 33/144 (23%) | 16/65 (25%) | NS |
| LBBB | 52/209 (25%) | 36/144 (25%) | 16/65 (25%) | NS |
| NSVT | 59/209 (28%) | 34/144 (24%) | 25/65 (39%) |
|
| Duration of symptoms (months) | 2 [0–5] | 2 [0–4] | 2 [0–7] | NS |
| Presentation in outpatient clinic setting | 165/209 (79%) | 115/144 (80%) | 50/65 (77%) | NS |
| Genetic diagnostic yield | ||||
| Core panel + TTN | 136/209 (65%) | 95/144 (66%) | 41/65 (63%) | NS |
| Pathogenic mutation | 29/136 (14%) | 18/95 (19%) | 11/41 (27%) | NS |
| TTN | 16/29 (8%) | 8/18 (44%) | 8/11 (73%) | NS |
| LMNA | 3/29 (1%) | 1/18 (6%) | 2/11 (18%) | NS |
| Presentation | ||||
| Family history of DCM | 35/209 (17%) | 23/144 (16%) | 12/65 (19%) | NS |
| NYHA class III or IV | 61/209 (29%) | 34/144 (34%) | 27/65 (42%) |
|
| Out of hospital cardiac arrest | 13/209 (6%) | 8/144 (6%) | 5/65 (8%) | NS |
| Lab | ||||
| AST (U/L) | 24 [19–33] | 24 [18–32] | 25 [20–36] | NS |
| ALT (U/L) | 26 [20–35] | 26 [20–34] | 29 [21–38] | NS |
| Alkaline phosphatase (U/L) | 82 [64–99] | 83 [67–100] | 79 [63–95] | NS |
| eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 72 [61–86] | 75 [64–88] | 68 [56–80] |
|
| NT‐proBNP (ng/L) | 557 [191–1636] | 367 [128–1228] | 1032 [360–3078] |
|
| CRP (mg/L) | 3 [1–7] | 3 [2–6] | 3 [0–9] | NS |
| hs‐TnT (ng/L) | 11 [7–25] | 10 [6–18] | 19 [10–42] |
|
| PICP (ng/mL) | 78 [64–102] | 77 [63–97] | 85 [66–110] | NS |
| PIIINP (ng/mL) | 4 [3.2–6.4] | 4 [3.1–5.6] | 5 [3.5–7.4] |
|
| Medication | ||||
| Beta‐blocker | 174/209 (83%) | 122/144 (85%) | 52/65 (80%) | NS |
| ACE inhibitor/ARB | 185/209 (89%) | 124/144 (86%) | 58/65 (89%) | NS |
| Loop diuretic | 112/209 (54%) | 73/144 (51%) | 39/65 (60%) | NS |
| Aldosterone antagonist | 74/209 (35%) | 49/144 (34%) | 25/65 (39%) | NS |
| CMR | ||||
| LVEDVi (mL/m2) | 136 ± 53 | 135 ± 56 | 138 ± 47 | NS |
| LVESVi (mL/m2) | 92 ± 50 | 90 ± 53 | 97 ± 45 | NS |
| LVEF (%) | 34 ± 12 | 35 ± 12 | 32 ± 12 | 0.04 |
| Stroke volume, indexed (mL/m2) | 43 ± 14 | 44 ± 14 | 41 ± 14 | NS |
| LV mass index (g/m2) | 75 ± 27 | 74 ± 28 | 76 ± 23 | NS |
| RVEDVi (mL/m2) | 89 ± 32 | 88 ± 34 | 89 ± 26 | NS |
| RVESVi (mL/m2) | 48 ± 27 | 48 ± 29 | 49 ± 23 | NS |
| RVEF (%) | 47 ± 14 | 47 ± 14 | 45 ± 13 | NS |
| LAVI (mL/m2) | 54 ± 24 | 53 ± 24 | 56 ± 22 | NS |
| Endomyocardial biopsy | ||||
| Cardiac inflammation | 71/209 (34%) | 55/132 (42%) | 16/64 (25%) |
|
| CD3 (cells/mm2) | 6 [3–9] | 6 [4–10] | 5 [3–7] |
|
| CD45 (cells/mm2) | 9 [4–12] | 10 [6–14] | 8 [5–11] |
|
| Collagen volume fraction (%) | 7 [4–11] | 6 [4–10] | 9 [4–14] |
|
ACE, angiotensin‐converting enzyme; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; ARB, angiotensin receptor II blocker; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; CMR, cardiac magnetic resonance; CRP, C‐reactive protein; DCM, dilated cardiomyopathy; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; hs‐TnT, high‐sensitivity troponin T; LAVI, indexed left atrial volume; LBBB, left bundle branch block; LGE, late gadolinium enhancement; LVEDVi, indexed left ventricular end‐diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESVi, indexed left ventricular end‐systolic volume; NSVT, non‐sustained ventricular tachycardia; NT‐proBNP, N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PICP, carboxy‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type I; PIIINP, amino‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type III; RVEDVi, indexed right ventricular end‐diastolic volume; RVEF, right ventricular ejection fraction; RVESVi, indexed right ventricular end‐systolic volume.
Figure 2Correlation between collagen volume fraction (CVF) in cardiac tissue and serum carboxy‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type I (PICP) in the total cohort and heart failure severity. PICP levels and histological CVF correlated in the total cohort (A) and even more so in patients with severe heart failure in terms of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35% (B), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class ≥III (C), or both (D).
Figure 3Long‐term outcomes in dilated cardiomyopathy patients classified according to different fibrosis assessments. (A) Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), (B) carboxy‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type I (PICP), and (C) amino‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type III (PIIINP) are associated with worse prognosis. Histological fibrosis (D) is not. CVF, collagen volume fraction.
Univariate and multivariable models for combined endpoint
| Fibrosis assessment | Unadjusted analysis | Adjusted analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| LGE | 3.7 (2.0–6.5) | <0.001 | 3.54 (1.9–6.6) | <0.001 |
| PICP, ng/mL | 1.02 (1.01–1.03) | <0.001 | 1.02 (1.01–1.03) | 0.001 |
| PIIINP, µg/mL | 1.07 (1.02–1.12) | 0.004 | 1.06 (0.94–1.11) | NS |
| CVF, % | 1.07 (0.99–1.16) | NS | 1.05 (0.97–1.15) | NS |
CI, confidence interval; CVF, collagen volume fraction; HR, hazard ratio; LGE, late gadolinium enhancement; PICP, carboxy‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type I; PIIINP, amino‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type III.
Adjusted for left ventricular ejection fraction, estimated glomerular filtration rate, body mass index, N‐terminal pro B‐type natriuretic peptide, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist use, diabetes, sex and age.
Figure 4Evaluation of the predictive value of carboxy‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type I (PICP) and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) after adjustment for clinical parameters using a series of nested models. PICP and LGE did not significantly improve discrimination based on Harrel's C‐index, neither did the combination of LGE and PICP (A). The combination of PICP and LGE improves the goodness‐of‐fit (B) and reclassification (C,D) compared to the individual markers. IDI, integrated discrimination improvement; NRI, net reclassification index.
Figure 5Long‐term outcomes in dilated cardiomyopathy patients classified according to presence (+) or absence (−) of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and above (+) or below (−) median values of carboxy‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type I (PICP). Dilated cardiomyopathy patients with LGE+/PICP+ had a significantly worse outcome as compared to the other groups.
Figure 6Principal component analysis based on cardiac RNA‐sequencing data of dilated cardiomyopathy patients classified according to presence (+) or absence (−) of late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and above (+) or below (−) median values of carboxy‐terminal propeptide of procollagen type I (PICP). Principal component analysis revealed a distinct clustering of RNA transcript levels separating three groups of patients: low degree of fibrosis (LGE‐/PICP‐), intermediate degree of fibrosis (LGE‐/PICP+ and LGE+/PICP‐), and high degree of fibrosis (LGE+/PICP+).