| Literature DB >> 34435138 |
Min Li1, Xiaoyuan Gao2, Huiyun Wang3, Mingli Zhang1, Xiaoying Li1, Shuya Wang2, Shaoqin Wang1, Chongfeng Cao4, Ying Li5, Guohai Su6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a serious and advanced stage of various cardiac diseases with high mortality and rehospitalization rates. Phosphoglycerate mutase 2 (PGAM2) overexpression was identified in the serum of patients with HF. MATERIAL/Entities:
Keywords: HF; NYHA; PGAM2; biomarker; cardiac function grading
Year: 2021 PMID: 34435138 PMCID: PMC8359905 DOI: 10.1515/med-2021-0324
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Med (Wars)
Figure 1Echocardiography examination of HF cases.
The main characteristics of the included cases
| Characteristic | II ( | III ( | IV ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 74.50 ± 10.71 | 77.32 ± 9.84 | 78.91 ± 12.24 | 1.27 | 0.28 |
| Gender ( | 0.81 | 0.67 | |||
| Male | 10 | 49 | 27 | ||
| Female | 12 | 35 | 20 | ||
| AMI | 1.25 | 0.53 | |||
| Positive | 2 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Negative | 20 | 81 | 44 | ||
| Diabetes mellitus | 0.25 | 0.88 | |||
| Positive | 7 | 27 | 17 | ||
| Negative | 15 | 57 | 30 | ||
| Coronary heart disease | 0.13 | 0.94 | |||
| Positive | 7 | 26 | 16 | ||
| Negative | 15 | 58 | 31 | ||
| Stroke history | 0.45 | 0.80 | |||
| Positive | 4 | 21 | 11 | ||
| Negative | 18 | 63 | 36 | ||
| Atrial fibrillation | 16.24 | <0.001 | |||
| Positive | 0 | 13 | 18 | ||
| Negative | 22 | 71 | 29 | ||
| Renal insufficiency | 3.15 | 0.21 | |||
| Positive | 0 | 7 | 6 | ||
| Negative | 22 | 77 | 41 | ||
| Hypertension | 2.13 | 0.34 | |||
| Positive | 16 | 68 | 33 | ||
| Negative | 6 | 16 | 14 |
The serum markers’ distribution among different grade HF subjects
| Markers | NYHA II | NYHA III | NYHA IV |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PGAM2 (pg/mL) | 74.31 ± 35.76 | 72.01 ± 34.94 | 92.04 ± 51.63 | 3.74 | 0.025 |
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | 653.70 ± 824.40 | 3892.00 ± 5132.10 | 4692.32 ± 3446.283 | 3.415 | 0.037 |
| BNP (ng/L) | 724.90 ± 841.20 | 528.90 ± 736.60 | 821.20 ± 833.00 | 0.79 | 0.46 |
| TNT (ng/mL) | 231.30 ± 490.00 | 165.50 ± 505.70 | 299.90 ± 792.10 | 0.59 | 0.56 |
| Cys-C (mg/L) | 1.09 ± 0.30 | 1.41 ± 0.59 | 1.82 ± 0.99 | 5.06 | 0.008 |
The diagnostic efficacy of serum level of PGAM2, NT-proBNP, BNP, TNT, and Cys-C in evaluation of HF severity
| Markers | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | AUC | Likelihood ratio | Cutoff value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NYHA II vs NYHA III | |||||
| PGAM2 (pg/mL) | 51.19(40.04–62.26) | 54.55(32.21–75.61) | 0.53(0.39–0.67) | 1.13 | 66.69 |
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | 74.51(85.67) | 80.00(44.39–97.48) | 0.82(0.70–0.95) | 3.73 | 866.5 |
| BNP (ng/L) | 66.74(48.63–83.32) | 55.56(21.20–86.30) | 0.55(0.30–0.80) | 1.52 | 452.00 |
| TNT (ng/mL) | 70.15(57.73–80.72) | 42.86(21.82–65.98) | 0.52(0.37–0.67) | 1.23 | 15.5 |
| Cys-C (mg/L) | 66.67(53.31–78.31) | 63.64(30.79–89.07) | 0.66(0.51–081) | 1.83 | 1.08 |
| PGAM2 + NT-proBNP | 61.22(51.23–75.23) | 68.89(33.92–90.21) | 0.67(0.52–0.82) | 1.81 | NA |
| NYHA II vs NYHA IV | |||||
| PGAM2 | 65.96(50.69–79.14) | 45.45(24.39–67.79) | 0.59(0.45–0.74) | 1.21 | 66.83 |
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | 74.29(56.74–87.51) | 100(69.15–100) | 0.93(0.85–1.00) | 7.43 | 2493.00 |
| BNP (ng/L) | 87.50(61.65–98.45) | 44.44(13.70–78.80) | 0.58(0.31–0.84) | 1.58 | 146.00 |
| TNT (ng/mL) | 71.43(53.70–85.36) | 61.90(38.44–81.89) | 0.63(0.47–0.79) | 1.88 | 25.50 |
| Cys-C (mg/L) | 80.00(59.30–93.17) | 54.55(23.38–83.25) | 0.75(0.59–0.91) | 1.76 | 1.02 |
| PGAM2 + NT-proBNP | 66.23(45.23–89.87) | 68.87(49.56–92.11) | 0.65(0.49–0.82) | 1.57 | NA |
| NYHA III vs NYHA IV | |||||
| PGAM2 | 63.83(48.52–77.33) | 57.14(45.88–67.89) | 0.61(0.52–+0.72) | 1.49 | 71.2 |
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | 62.86(44.92–78.53) | 60.78(46.11–74.16) | 0.66(0.55–0.78) | 1.60 | 3210.00 |
| BNP (ng/L) | 68.75(41.34–88.98) | 54.84(36.03–72.68) | 0.65(0.49–0.81) | 1.52 | 280.00 |
| TNT (ng/mL) | 68.57(50.71–83.15) | 56.72(44.04–68.78) | 0.61(0.50–0.71) | 1.59 | 27.5 |
| Cys-C (mg/L) | 64.00(42.52–82.03) | 48.33(35.23–61.61) | 0.60(0.46–0.73) | 1.24 | 1.24 |
| PGAM2 + NT-proBNP | 62.22(41.63–80.11) | 63.23(39.66–81.58) | 0.64(0.49–0.79) | 1.44 | NA |
Figure 2The ROC curve of serum level of PGAM2, NT-proBNP, BNP, TNT, and Cys-C in evaluation of HF severity.
Echocardiography features between different HF groups
| Echocardiography | NYHA II | NYHA III | NYHA IV |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LVEF (%) | 53.41 ± 11.65 | 50.53 ± 12.91 | 41.66 ± 12.65 | 7.57 | 0.0008 |
| LVEDD (mm) | 46.18 ± 5.16 | 47.61 ± 7.43 | 53.18 ± 10.14 | 6.84 | 0.0016 |
| LA inner diameter (mm) | 36.06 ± 6.40 | 38.55 ± 6.76 | 41.67 ± 9.78 | 3.48 | 0.034 |
Figure 3ROC curve of LVEF, LVEDD, and LA inner diameter for HF severity evaluation.
Figure 4Survival curve of the HF patients divided according to the NYHA classification (p = 0.04 among different groups).