Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional case-control study reveals that serum galectin-3 outperforms NT-proBNP in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, indicating strong utility as a diagnostic biomarker.
Background Heart failure is a complex cardiovascular disease with a variety of etiologies and heterogeneity. The N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) value has limited usefulness in diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Aim The aim of the present study is to evaluate serum Galectin-3 as a diagnostic biomarker in patients with HFpEF and to compare Galectin-3 with NT-proBNP levels. Materials and Methods A cross-sectional case–control study including 63 cases of heart failure with ejection fraction ≥50% confirmed by echocardiography. NT-proBNP levels in serum were measured by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay and Galectin-3 levels in serum were measured by using an enzyme-linked-immunosorbent serologic assay kit. Results The median levels of serum Galectin-3 and NT-proBNP in patients were significantly higher than those of controls (26.59 vs. 5.27 and 927 vs. 49.3, p < 0.0001). A positive correlation was observed between serum levels of Galection-3 and NT-ProBNP (r: 0.21, p = 0.048). At cut-off values of 10.1 ng/mL and 160 pg/mL, serum Galectin-3 has 77.78% sensitivity, 95% specificity with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.93, and serum NT-proBNP has 71.43% sensitivity, 100% specificity with an AUC of 0.87, respectively, for diagnosing HFpEF. The comparison of receiver operating characteristics curves showed that Galectin-3 has better AUC compared with NT-proBNP in diagnosing HFpEF. Serum Galectin-3 showed a positive correlation with NT-proBNP and lipid parameters. Conclusion Galectin-3 with higher sensitivity and AUC can be used as a valuable biomarker for the diagnosis of HFpEF. Simultaneous testing of both Galectin-3 and NT-proBNP can further improve the detection of patients with HFpEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kanukurti et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: