Key result
The combination of plasma AMBP, LPL, and glyoxalase I differentiated HFpEF-PH from PAH with an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.95), yielding 87.1% sensitivity and 85.4% specificity.
Why the study?
Discrimination of HFpEF-PH from PAH is crucial for clinical management but challenging due to similarities in clinical and comorbid characteristics.
Do plasma biomarkers AMBP, LPL, and Glyoxalase I improve the differentiation of HFpEF-PH from PAH in patients with pulmonary hypertension?
Observational (n=135)
Do plasma biomarkers AMBP, LPL, and Glyoxalase I improve the differentiation of HFpEF-PH from PAH in patients with pulmonary hypertension?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Plasma biomarkers AMBP, LPL, and glyoxalase I may help differentiate HFpEF-PH from PAH, which is often clinically challenging due to overlapping characteristics.
Background Discrimination of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with pulmonary hypertension (HFpEF-PH) from pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is crucial for clinical management but may be challenging due to similarities in clinical and comorbid characteristics. We aimed to investigate tumour and metabolism related proteins in differentiating HFpEF-PH from PAH. Methods Sixty-nine tumour and metabolism plasma proteins were analysed with proximity extension assay in heathy controls ( n = 20), patients with PAH ( n = 48) and LHF-PH ( n = 67) [HFpEF-PH ( n = 31) and HF reduced EF-PH ( n = 36)]. Haemodynamics were assessed with right heart catheterization. Results The plasma levels of alpha-1-microglobulin/bikunin precursor (AMBP) and lipoprotein lipase (LPL), were higher in HFpEF-PH compared to healthy controls ( p < 0.01), HFrEF-PH ( p < 0.05), and PAH ( p < 0.001). Glyoxalase I levels were higher in HFpEF-PH and HFrEF-PH compared to controls ( p < 0.001) and PAH (p < 0.001). Each of plasma AMBP, LPL, and glyoxalase I, adjusted for age and sex in multivariable logistic regression models, could differentiate HFpEF-PH from PAH, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.81, 0.84 and 0.79, respectively. The combination of AMBP, LPL and glyoxalse I yielded the largest AUC of 0.87 [95% confidence interval (0.79–0.95)] in discriminating HFpEF-PH from PAH, with a sensitivity of 87.1% and a specificity of 85.4%. In HFpEF-PH, the plasma levels of AMBP correlated with pulmonary arterial wedge pressure (r s = −0.42, p = 0.018). Conclusions Plasma AMBP, LPL and glyoxalase I may facilitate the distinction of HFpEF-PH from PAH. Larger clinical studies are encouraged to confirm and validate our findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2021) conducted an observational in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with pulmonary hypertension (HFpEF-PH) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) (n=135). Plasma AMBP, LPL, and glyoxalase I levels vs. PAH and healthy controls was evaluated on Discrimination of HFpEF-PH from PAH (AUC 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.95). The combination of plasma AMBP, LPL, and glyoxalase I differentiated HFpEF-PH from PAH with an AUC of 0.87 (95% CI 0.79-0.95), yielding 87.1% sensitivity and 85.4% specificity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: