Mustafa Umut Somuncu1, Fatih Pasa Tatar1, Belma Kalayci1, Ahmet Avci1, Naile Eris Gudul1, Begum Uygur2, Ali Riza Demir2, Murat Can3. 1. Department of Cardiology, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University Faculty of Medicine, Zounguldak. 2. Department of Cardiology, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Center, Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul. 3. Department of Biochemistry, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University Faculty of Medicine, Zounguldak, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The determinants of left ventricular (LV) recovery after successful revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients are not clear. In addition, the relationship between growth differentiation factor15 (GDF-15) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement is also unknown. This study hypothesizes that a low GDF-15 level would be associated with LVEF recovery. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-one STEMI patients were included in this study. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and 12-18 weeks after discharge. The patients were divided into three groups according to the changes in LVEF as 62 patients with ≥ 10% change, 47 patients with 1-9% change, and 52 patients ≤ 0% change. LV recovery was defined as ≥ 10% LVEF improvement and the predictors of LV recovery were investigated. Moreover, two groups were created according to GDF-15 values, and the follow-up/baseline echocardiographic parameters were compared between these groups. RESULTS: LV recovery was detected in 38.5% of the patients. Low baseline LVEF [odds ratio (OR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.94, p = 0.001], low GDF-15 (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004), previous angina (OR: 2.34, 95% CI 1.10-4.96, p = 0.027), and symptom-to-balloon time (OR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, p = 0.043) were independent predictors of LV recovery. The ratios of follow-up/baseline LV end-diastolic volume index, LV end-systolic volume index and wall motion score index were lower in the low GDF-15 group (0.96 vs. 1.04, p < 0.001; 0.96 vs. 1.10, p < 0.001; 0.89 vs. 0.96, p < 0.001). Moreover, being in the low GDF-15 group was associated with LV recovery (OR: 2.93, 95% CI 1.43-6.02, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lower GDF-15 level was associated with better LV improvement and less adverse remodeling in STEMI patients.
BACKGROUND: The determinants of left ventricular (LV) recovery after successful revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients are not clear. In addition, the relationship between growth differentiation factor15 (GDF-15) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement is also unknown. This study hypothesizes that a low GDF-15 level would be associated with LVEF recovery. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-one STEMI patients were included in this study. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and 12-18 weeks after discharge. The patients were divided into three groups according to the changes in LVEF as 62 patients with ≥ 10% change, 47 patients with 1-9% change, and 52 patients ≤ 0% change. LV recovery was defined as ≥ 10% LVEF improvement and the predictors of LV recovery were investigated. Moreover, two groups were created according to GDF-15 values, and the follow-up/baseline echocardiographic parameters were compared between these groups. RESULTS: LV recovery was detected in 38.5% of the patients. Low baseline LVEF [odds ratio (OR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.94, p = 0.001], low GDF-15 (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004), previous angina (OR: 2.34, 95% CI 1.10-4.96, p = 0.027), and symptom-to-balloon time (OR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, p = 0.043) were independent predictors of LV recovery. The ratios of follow-up/baseline LV end-diastolic volume index, LV end-systolic volume index and wall motion score index were lower in the low GDF-15 group (0.96 vs. 1.04, p < 0.001; 0.96 vs. 1.10, p < 0.001; 0.89 vs. 0.96, p < 0.001). Moreover, being in the low GDF-15 group was associated with LV recovery (OR: 2.93, 95% CI 1.43-6.02, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lower GDF-15 level was associated with better LV improvement and less adverse remodeling in STEMI patients.
Authors: E M Antman; M Cohen; P J Bernink; C H McCabe; T Horacek; G Papuchis; B Mautner; R Corbalan; D Radley; E Braunwald Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-08-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Derek S Chew; Huikuri Heikki; Georg Schmidt; Katherine M Kavanagh; Michael Dommasch; Poul Erik Bloch Thomsen; Daniel Sinnecker; Pekka Raatikainen; Derek V Exner Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2018-03-01
Authors: Teresa A Zimmers; Xiaoling Jin; Edward C Hsiao; Sharon A McGrath; Aurora F Esquela; Leonidas G Koniaris Journal: Shock Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Kai C Wollert; Martin G Larson; Erin Coglianese; Elizabeth L McCabe; Susan Cheng; Jennifer E Ho; Michael G Fradley; Anahita Ghorbani; Vanessa Xanthakis; Tibor Kempf; Emelia J Benjamin; Daniel Levy; Ramachandran S Vasan; James L Januzzi Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David A Brown; Samuel N Breit; Julie Buring; W Douglas Fairlie; Asne R Bauskin; Tao Liu; Paul M Ridker Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-06-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Gjin Ndrepepa; Julinda Mehilli; Stefan Martinoff; Markus Schwaiger; Albert Schömig; Adnan Kastrati Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-06-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Michelle M Y Chan; Rajalakshmi Santhanakrishnan; Jenny P C Chong; Zhaojin Chen; Bee Choo Tai; Oi Wah Liew; Tze Pin Ng; Lieng H Ling; David Sim; Kui Toh G Leong; Poh Shuan Daniel Yeo; Hean-Yee Ong; Fazlur Jaufeerally; Raymond Ching-Chiew Wong; Ping Chai; Adrian F Low; Arthur M Richards; Carolyn S P Lam Journal: Eur J Heart Fail Date: 2015-10-25 Impact factor: 15.534