Growth Differentiation Factor 15 is Related with Left Ventricular Recovery in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction after Successful Reperfusion by Primary Percutaneous Intervention.

Cardiac remodeling Left ventricular function Myocardial infarction Percutaneous coronary revascularization

Journal

Acta Cardiologica Sinica
ISSN: 1011-6842
Titre abrégé: Acta Cardiol Sin
Pays: China (Republic : 1949- )
ID NLM: 101687085

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Historique:
received: 27 10 2020
accepted: 19 03 2021
entrez: 29 9 2021
pubmed: 30 9 2021
medline: 30 9 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The determinants of left ventricular (LV) recovery after successful revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients are not clear. In addition, the relationship between growth differentiation factor15 (GDF-15) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement is also unknown. This study hypothesizes that a low GDF-15 level would be associated with LVEF recovery. One hundred and sixty-one STEMI patients were included in this study. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and 12-18 weeks after discharge. The patients were divided into three groups according to the changes in LVEF as 62 patients with ≥ 10% change, 47 patients with 1-9% change, and 52 patients ≤ 0% change. LV recovery was defined as ≥ 10% LVEF improvement and the predictors of LV recovery were investigated. Moreover, two groups were created according to GDF-15 values, and the follow-up/baseline echocardiographic parameters were compared between these groups. LV recovery was detected in 38.5% of the patients. Low baseline LVEF [odds ratio (OR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.94, p = 0.001], low GDF-15 (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004), previous angina (OR: 2.34, 95% CI 1.10-4.96, p = 0.027), and symptom-to-balloon time (OR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, p = 0.043) were independent predictors of LV recovery. The ratios of follow-up/baseline LV end-diastolic volume index, LV end-systolic volume index and wall motion score index were lower in the low GDF-15 group (0.96 vs. 1.04, p < 0.001; 0.96 vs. 1.10, p < 0.001; 0.89 vs. 0.96, p < 0.001). Moreover, being in the low GDF-15 group was associated with LV recovery (OR: 2.93, 95% CI 1.43-6.02, p = 0.001). Lower GDF-15 level was associated with better LV improvement and less adverse remodeling in STEMI patients.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The determinants of left ventricular (LV) recovery after successful revascularization in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients are not clear. In addition, the relationship between growth differentiation factor15 (GDF-15) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement is also unknown. This study hypothesizes that a low GDF-15 level would be associated with LVEF recovery.
METHODS METHODS
One hundred and sixty-one STEMI patients were included in this study. Echocardiographic examinations were performed before and 12-18 weeks after discharge. The patients were divided into three groups according to the changes in LVEF as 62 patients with ≥ 10% change, 47 patients with 1-9% change, and 52 patients ≤ 0% change. LV recovery was defined as ≥ 10% LVEF improvement and the predictors of LV recovery were investigated. Moreover, two groups were created according to GDF-15 values, and the follow-up/baseline echocardiographic parameters were compared between these groups.
RESULTS RESULTS
LV recovery was detected in 38.5% of the patients. Low baseline LVEF [odds ratio (OR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.94, p = 0.001], low GDF-15 (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.68-0.93, p = 0.004), previous angina (OR: 2.34, 95% CI 1.10-4.96, p = 0.027), and symptom-to-balloon time (OR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-1.00, p = 0.043) were independent predictors of LV recovery. The ratios of follow-up/baseline LV end-diastolic volume index, LV end-systolic volume index and wall motion score index were lower in the low GDF-15 group (0.96 vs. 1.04, p < 0.001; 0.96 vs. 1.10, p < 0.001; 0.89 vs. 0.96, p < 0.001). Moreover, being in the low GDF-15 group was associated with LV recovery (OR: 2.93, 95% CI 1.43-6.02, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Lower GDF-15 level was associated with better LV improvement and less adverse remodeling in STEMI patients.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34584380
doi: 10.6515/ACS.202109_37(5).20210319A
pmc: PMC8414065
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

473-483

Références

JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2018 May;4(5):672-682
pubmed: 29798797
Heart. 2011 Apr;97(8):632-40
pubmed: 21345844
Eur Heart J. 2009 May;30(9):1057-65
pubmed: 19168526
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Jul 10;50(2):149-56
pubmed: 17616299
JAMA. 2000 Aug 16;284(7):835-42
pubmed: 10938172
Shock. 2005 Jun;23(6):543-8
pubmed: 15897808
Lancet. 2002 Jun 22;359(9324):2159-63
pubmed: 12090982
Circulation. 2012 Sep 25;126(13):1596-604
pubmed: 22907935
Eur J Heart Fail. 2016 Jan;18(1):81-8
pubmed: 26497848
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2019 Jun 26;57(7):1093-1101
pubmed: 30707681
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 May 5;43(9):1511-4
pubmed: 15120803
Am J Cardiol. 2011 Oct 1;108(7):955-8
pubmed: 21784389
Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2020 Mar;57(2):114-125
pubmed: 31663791
J Cardiovasc Echogr. 2018 Jan-Mar;28(1):39-44
pubmed: 29629258
Am J Med Sci. 2014 Apr;347(4):305-11
pubmed: 24521768
Am J Cardiol. 2007 Dec 15;100(12):1718-22
pubmed: 18082514
J Korean Med Sci. 2016 Sep;31(9):1413-8
pubmed: 27510384
Circulation. 2008 Jan 1;117(1):103-14
pubmed: 18172050
Eur Heart J. 2010 May;31(10):1168-71
pubmed: 20299701
Circulation. 2016 Jan 26;133(4):447-54
pubmed: 26811276
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Oct;46(11):2322-2328
pubmed: 31359109
JAMA. 2012 Sep 12;308(10):998-1006
pubmed: 22928184
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 14;8(6):e65549
pubmed: 23799024
Eur Heart J. 2001 May;22(9):785-90
pubmed: 11350111
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Sep 17;42(6):991-7
pubmed: 13678918
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Jun 2;43(11):2022-7
pubmed: 15172407
Am J Cardiol. 2018 Mar 15;121(6):678-683
pubmed: 29394998
J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015 Jan;28(1):1-39.e14
pubmed: 25559473
Circulation. 2002 Oct 29;106(18):2351-7
pubmed: 12403666
Am J Cardiol. 2001 Jan 1;87(1):1-6
pubmed: 11137824
Cardiol Ther. 2019 Jun;8(1):29-41
pubmed: 30701401
Am Heart J. 2018 Apr;198:91-96
pubmed: 29653653
Arch Med Sci. 2020 Mar 10;16(4):772-780
pubmed: 32542077

Auteurs

Mustafa Umut Somuncu (MU)

Department of Cardiology, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University Faculty of Medicine, Zounguldak.

Fatih Pasa Tatar (FP)

Department of Cardiology, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University Faculty of Medicine, Zounguldak.

Belma Kalayci (B)

Department of Cardiology, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University Faculty of Medicine, Zounguldak.

Ahmet Avci (A)

Department of Cardiology, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University Faculty of Medicine, Zounguldak.

Naile Eris Gudul (NE)

Department of Cardiology, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University Faculty of Medicine, Zounguldak.

Begum Uygur (B)

Department of Cardiology, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Center, Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul.

Ali Riza Demir (AR)

Department of Cardiology, Mehmet Akif Ersoy Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Center, Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul.

Murat Can (M)

Department of Biochemistry, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University Faculty of Medicine, Zounguldak, Turkey.

Classifications MeSH