Key result
The NT-proBNP to GDF15 ratio distinguished between heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction with an AUC of 0.709 (P<0.001).
Why the study?
Do circulating levels of GDF15, ST2, hsTnT, and NT-proBNP differ between patients with HFREF, HFPEF, and community-based controls?
Observational (n=151)
Do circulating levels of GDF15, ST2, hsTnT, and NT-proBNP differ between patients with HFREF, HFPEF, and community-based controls?
Distinct biomarker profiles suggest myocardial injury and wall stress predominate in HFrEF, while systemic inflammation predominates in HFpEF.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May aid HF subtype differentiation in research; leaves open prospective validation before any clinical role.
AIMS: Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15), ST2, high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), and N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) are biomarkers of distinct mechanisms that may contribute to the pathophysiology of heart failure (HF) [inflammation (GDF15); ventricular remodelling (ST2); myonecrosis (hsTnT); and wall stress (NT-proBNP)]. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared circulating levels of GDF15, ST2, hsTnT, and NT-proBNP, as well as their combinations, in compensated patients with clinical HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF) (n = 51), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) (n= 50), and community-based controls (n = 50). Compared with controls, patients with HFPEF and HFREF had higher median levels of GDF15 (540 pg/mL vs. 2529 and 2672 pg/mL, respectively), hsTnT (3.7 pg/mL vs. 23.7 and 35.6 pg/mL), and NT-proBNP (69 pg/mL vs. 942 and 2562 pg/mL), but not ST2 (27.6 ng/mL vs. 31.5 and 35.3 ng/mL), adjusting for clinical covariates. In receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, NT-proBNP distinguished HFREF from controls with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.987 (P < 0.001); GDF15 distinguished HFPEF from controls with an AUC of 0.936 (P < 0.001); and the combination of NT-proBNP and GDF15 distinguished HFPEF from controls with an AUC of 0.956 (P < 0.001). NT-proBNP and hsTnT levels were higher in HFREF than in HFPEF (adjusted P < 0.04). The NT-proBNP:GDF15 ratio distinguished between HFPEF and HFREF with the largest AUC (0.709; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides comparative data on physiologically distinct circulating biomarkers in HFPEF, HFREF, and controls from the same community. These data suggest a prominent role for myocardial injury (hsTnT) with increased wall stress (NT-proBNP) in HFREF, and systemic inflammation (GDF15) in HFPEF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santhanakrishnan et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Heart failure with preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction (n=151). Biomarker profiling (GDF15, ST2, hsTnT, NT-proBNP) vs. Community-based controls and between HF subtypes was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (AUC) of biomarkers to distinguish HF subtypes and controls (AUC 0.709, p=<0.001). The NT-proBNP to GDF15 ratio distinguished between heart failure with preserved and reduced ejection fraction with an AUC of 0.709 (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: