NMR-based metabolomics identifies patients at high risk of death within two years after acute myocardial infarction in the AMI-Florence II cohort.
Acute myocardial infarction
Biomarker
Metabolomics
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Precision medicine
Prognosis
Serum
Journal
BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 01 2019
07 01 2019
Historique:
received:
27
12
2017
accepted:
14
12
2018
entrez:
9
1
2019
pubmed:
9
1
2019
medline:
6
7
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Risk stratification and management of acute myocardial infarction patients continue to be challenging despite considerable efforts made in the last decades by many clinicians and researchers. The aim of this study was to investigate the metabolomic fingerprint of acute myocardial infarction using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy on patient serum samples and to evaluate the possible role of metabolomics in the prognostic stratification of acute myocardial infarction patients. In total, 978 acute myocardial infarction patients were enrolled in this study; of these, 146 died and 832 survived during 2 years of follow-up after the acute myocardial infarction. Serum samples were analyzed via high-resolution In the training set, metabolomics showed significant differential clustering of the two outcomes cohorts. A prognostic risk model predicted death with 76.9% sensitivity, 79.5% specificity, and 78.2% accuracy, and an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.859. These results were reproduced in the validation set, obtaining 72.6% sensitivity, 72.6% specificity, and 72.6% accuracy. Cox models were used to compare the known prognostic factors (for example, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, age, sex, Killip class) with the metabolomic random forest risk score. In the univariate analysis, many prognostic factors were statistically associated with the outcomes; among them, the random forest score calculated from the nuclear magnetic resonance data showed a statistically relevant hazard ratio of 6.45 (p = 2.16×10 For the first time, metabolomic profiling technologies were used to discriminate between patients with different outcomes after an acute myocardial infarction. These technologies seem to be a valid and accurate addition to standard stratification based on clinical and biohumoral parameters.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Risk stratification and management of acute myocardial infarction patients continue to be challenging despite considerable efforts made in the last decades by many clinicians and researchers. The aim of this study was to investigate the metabolomic fingerprint of acute myocardial infarction using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy on patient serum samples and to evaluate the possible role of metabolomics in the prognostic stratification of acute myocardial infarction patients.
METHODS
In total, 978 acute myocardial infarction patients were enrolled in this study; of these, 146 died and 832 survived during 2 years of follow-up after the acute myocardial infarction. Serum samples were analyzed via high-resolution
RESULTS
In the training set, metabolomics showed significant differential clustering of the two outcomes cohorts. A prognostic risk model predicted death with 76.9% sensitivity, 79.5% specificity, and 78.2% accuracy, and an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.859. These results were reproduced in the validation set, obtaining 72.6% sensitivity, 72.6% specificity, and 72.6% accuracy. Cox models were used to compare the known prognostic factors (for example, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, age, sex, Killip class) with the metabolomic random forest risk score. In the univariate analysis, many prognostic factors were statistically associated with the outcomes; among them, the random forest score calculated from the nuclear magnetic resonance data showed a statistically relevant hazard ratio of 6.45 (p = 2.16×10
CONCLUSIONS
For the first time, metabolomic profiling technologies were used to discriminate between patients with different outcomes after an acute myocardial infarction. These technologies seem to be a valid and accurate addition to standard stratification based on clinical and biohumoral parameters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30616610
doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1240-2
pii: 10.1186/s12916-018-1240-2
pmc: PMC6323789
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3Références
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Mar 15;23(6):1422-1431
pubmed: 28082280
Atherosclerosis. 2015 Oct;242(2):589-94
pubmed: 26318109
Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2003;114:149-61; discussion 162-3
pubmed: 12813917
Am Heart J. 2007 Jan;153(1):29-35
pubmed: 17174633
Atherosclerosis. 2014 Jan;232(1):191-6
pubmed: 24401236
JAMA. 2010 Sep 22;304(12):1350-7
pubmed: 20805624
J Proteome Res. 2018 Jan 5;17(1):97-107
pubmed: 29090929
Metabolomics. 2015;11(5):1056-1067
pubmed: 26413039
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 May 1;59(18):1629-41
pubmed: 22538333
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Apr 21;65(15):1509-20
pubmed: 25881932
Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 29;6:30785
pubmed: 27470195
Eur Heart J. 2018 Jan 7;39(2):119-177
pubmed: 28886621
J Proteome Res. 2009 Jan;8(1):335-45
pubmed: 19053529
J Proteomics. 2015 Sep 8;127(Pt A):169-77
pubmed: 25790721
Nature. 2008 Oct 23;455(7216):1054-6
pubmed: 18948945
Anal Biochem. 2006 May 15;352(2):274-81
pubmed: 16600169
Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 2014 Aug;28(4):353-63
pubmed: 24494730
Am Heart J. 2012 May;163(5):844-850.e1
pubmed: 22607863
Mol Oncol. 2015 Jan;9(1):128-39
pubmed: 25151299
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2002 Nov 2;127(44):2311-6
pubmed: 12410433
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 May 10;57(19):e215-367
pubmed: 21545940
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 16;6(2):e16957
pubmed: 21359215
Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2015 Feb;8(1):192-206
pubmed: 25691689
Epidemiology (Sunnyvale). 2016 Apr;6(2):
pubmed: 27274911
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 06;10(11):e0142610
pubmed: 26544570
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2013;2013:298183
pubmed: 23573122
ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:186495
pubmed: 22619619
Circulation. 2015 Mar 3;131(9):774-85
pubmed: 25573147
J Biomed Inform. 2018 May;81:53-60
pubmed: 29578100
Circulation. 2002 Mar 12;105(10):1176-81
pubmed: 11889010
J Invasive Cardiol. 2009 Oct;21(10):493-8
pubmed: 19805833
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Apr;7(4):372-9
pubmed: 24630881
Eur Heart J. 2016 Jan 14;37(3):267-315
pubmed: 26320110
Sci Rep. 2016 Nov 08;6:36359
pubmed: 27821850
Eur J Heart Fail. 2018 Apr;20(4):663-673
pubmed: 29226610
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2015 Oct;25(10):937-42
pubmed: 26231617
Int J Cardiol. 2013 Oct 9;168(4):e113-5
pubmed: 24007967
JAMA. 2000 Aug 16;284(7):835-42
pubmed: 10938172
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 10;10(8):e0135228
pubmed: 26258408
Anal Bioanal Chem. 2017 Feb;409(5):1405-1413
pubmed: 27900420
Arch Intern Med. 2003 Oct 27;163(19):2345-53
pubmed: 14581255
Nat Protoc. 2007;2(11):2692-703
pubmed: 18007604
Thromb Haemost. 2013 May;109(5):846-53
pubmed: 23494003
Circulation. 2015 Jan 27;131(4):e29-322
pubmed: 25520374
J Biomol NMR. 2011 Apr;49(3-4):231-43
pubmed: 21380509
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2005 May;3(5):431-8
pubmed: 15821725
Lancet. 2010 Jan 9;375(9709):132-40
pubmed: 20031199
Metallomics. 2017 Jun 21;9(6):734-743
pubmed: 28518204
Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2019 Jan 21;58(4):968-994
pubmed: 29999221
Open Heart. 2018 Mar 10;5(1):e000709
pubmed: 29632675
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D801-7
pubmed: 23161693
Clin Transl Sci. 2012 Jun;5(3):285-8
pubmed: 22686208
Anal Chem. 2015 Jul 7;87(13):6709-17
pubmed: 26020452
PLoS One. 2015 May 26;10(5):e0124844
pubmed: 26010610
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Jan 15;119(2):210-216
pubmed: 27816119
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 17;12(4):e0175591
pubmed: 28414761