Exploratory study finds follistatin levels predict systolic function recovery in STEMI patients, suggesting clinical relevance.
Background/Objectives: Early circulating biomarkers capable of identifying patients at risk for impaired recovery of left ventricular (LV) systolic function after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remain limited. This exploratory study aims to determine whether serum follistatin measured within the first 24 h after coronary revascularization is associated with long-term LV systolic function, as assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Methods: In this prospective study, 31 patients with reperfused STEMI underwent serial CMR at 1 week and 6 months. Follistatin levels were measured within 24 h after revascularization. Associations between follistatin and CMR-derived LV systolic function were assessed using univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses. Results: Patients were stratified by median follistatin level (438 pg/mL) into below median (n = 15) and above median (n = 16). At 1 week, CMR-derived LV function, volumes, and structural indices were similar between groups. By 6 months, however, patients with follistatin above the median had higher LV ejection fraction (LVEF) [62 ± 9% vs. 54 ± 9%; p-value = 0.018] and lower LV end-systolic volume index (28 ± 12 vs. 41 ± 18 mL/m2; p-value = 0.037). In univariate analysis, follistatin was associated with 6-month LVEF (β = 0.027 per pg/mL; p-value = 0.004). After multivariable adjustment, follistatin remained independently associated with 6-month LVEF (β = 0.024 per pg/mL; p-value < 0.001) and with relative improvement in LVEF from 1 week to 6 months (β = 0.044 per pg/mL; p-value < 0.001). Conclusions: In reperfused STEMI patients, higher early follistatin levels were independently associated with more favorable LV systolic function at 6 months. These hypothesis-generating findings suggest that follistatin may represent a potential biomarker of subsequent systolic recovery after STEMI, warranting further validation in larger prospective studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gavara et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: