ESC heart failure · 2024
Catestatin as a predictor for cardiac death in heart failure with mildly reduced and preserved ejection fraction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chu Song-Yun, Peng Fen, Wang Jie, Liu Lin, Zhao Jing, Han Xiao-Ning, Ding Wen-Hui
Аннотация
AIMS: Endogenous catecholamine release-inhibitory peptide catestatin has been associated with heart failure (HF). This subgroup analysis of our cohort of HF compared the different effects of catestatin as a predictor for cardiac outcomes in patients with HF with reduced (HFrEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction.
METHODS: Plasma catestatin was measured in the HF patient cohort of 228 cases with a whole spectrum of ejection fraction. The cardiac deaths were analysed according to prespecified subgroups.
RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 52.5 months, the association between plasma catestatin and cardiac death was different in patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF or HFpEF [hazard ratio (HR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-2.37 and HR 2.73, 95% CI 1.56-4.75, respectively; interaction P = 0.022]. Patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF were older and more likely to be female, with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation but lower levels of plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). Similar adverse cardiac events occurred in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF as in HFrEF. Plasma catestatin was a better predictor for cardiovascular death in the HFmrEF/HFpEF patients [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.72, 95% CI 0.45-0.74] than in the HFrEF patients (AUC = 0.59, 95% CI 0.587-0.849). The optimal cut point of plasma catestatin level of 0.86 ng/mL predicted a 2.80-fold elevated risk for cardiac death in HFmrEF/HFpEF.
CONCLUSIONS: Elevated plasma catestatin might be a more sensitive predictor for cardiac outcome in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF than in HFrEF.
METHODS: Plasma catestatin was measured in the HF patient cohort of 228 cases with a whole spectrum of ejection fraction. The cardiac deaths were analysed according to prespecified subgroups.
RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 52.5 months, the association between plasma catestatin and cardiac death was different in patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF or HFpEF [hazard ratio (HR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-2.37 and HR 2.73, 95% CI 1.56-4.75, respectively; interaction P = 0.022]. Patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF were older and more likely to be female, with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation but lower levels of plasma B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP). Similar adverse cardiac events occurred in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF as in HFrEF. Plasma catestatin was a better predictor for cardiovascular death in the HFmrEF/HFpEF patients [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.72, 95% CI 0.45-0.74] than in the HFrEF patients (AUC = 0.59, 95% CI 0.587-0.849). The optimal cut point of plasma catestatin level of 0.86 ng/mL predicted a 2.80-fold elevated risk for cardiac death in HFmrEF/HFpEF.
CONCLUSIONS: Elevated plasma catestatin might be a more sensitive predictor for cardiac outcome in patients with HFmrEF/HFpEF than in HFrEF.