Key result
Patients with HFmrEF and type 2 diabetes had significantly higher PICP levels (106.4 vs 46.8 ng/ml) and NT-proBNP concentrations compared to patients with HFpEF.
Why the study?
The molecular biomarker profiles and their relationship with clinical characteristics of myocardial remodeling in patients with type 2 diabetes and HFpEF or HFmrEF remained to be clarified.
Cross-Sectional (n=55)
No
Absolute Event Rate: 106.4% vs 46.8%
p-value: p=0.043
Patients with T2D and HFmrEF exhibit higher concentrations of PICP compared to those with HFpEF, suggesting differences in fibrotic processes between heart failure phenotypes.
Aim. To study molecular biomarkers in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in combination with heart failure with preserved (HFpEF) and mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and compare the data obtained with clinical characteristics of myocardial remodeling. Material and methods. The study included 42 patients with T2D (men — 53%, mean age — 60 years) with clinical manifestations of class II HF: 29 patients with HFpEF (group 1) and 13 patients with HFmrEF (group 2). The control group consisted of 13 healthy people, which were comparable in sex and age and had a normal body mass index (BMI). Patients received stable glucose-lowering and optimal drug therapy for HF for 3 months prior to enrollment in the study. Patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF were comparable in clinical and demographic parameters, had glycated hemoglobin (HbA ) of 8,5% and 8,8%, respectively (p>0,05), increased BMI or grade I-II obesity. We studied following biomarkers: NT-proBNP, highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP), sST2, galectin-3, procollagen type I C-terminal propeptide (PICP), matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1). Results. Volumetric parameters of the left ventricle (LV),LV mass indexed to growth and NT-proBNP were higher in the group of HFpEF patients (p<0,05 for all). The concentrations of galectin-3, PICP were higher, and the MMP-9/TIMP-1 ratio decreased in patients with T2D compared with the control group (p<0,05 for all). PICP values were higher in patients with HFmrEF compared with patients with HFpEF (106,4 (85,4; 140,4) ng/ml vs 46,8 (12,6; 98,6 ng/ml), respectively, p=0,043). In patients with T2D and HF, a relationship was found between TIMP-1 andLV end-diastolic volume (r=-0,68; p=0,042). Conclusion. Patients with HFmrEF and T2D have higherLV volume and mass, higher concentrations of NT-proBNP and PICP in comparison with patients with HFpEF. The direction of MMP-9/TIMP-1 changes may reflect a decrease in antifibrotic processes. Further prospective studies on large samples using a multiple biomarker model are required in T2D and various HF phenotypes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Лебедев et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in Type 2 diabetes with heart failure (HFpEF and HFmrEF) (n=55). Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) vs. Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) was evaluated on C-terminal propeptide of procollagen type I (PICP) levels (ng/ml) (p=0.043). Patients with HFmrEF and type 2 diabetes had significantly higher PICP levels (106.4 vs 46.8 ng/ml) and NT-proBNP concentrations compared to patients with HFpEF.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: