ESC Heart Failure (Oct 2020)

Growth differentiation factor 15 as mortality predictor in heart failure patients with non‐reduced ejection fraction

  • Ana Belen Mendez Fernandez,
  • Andreu Ferrero‐Gregori,
  • Alvaro Garcia‐Osuna,
  • Sonia Mirabet‐Perez,
  • Maria Jose Pirla‐Buxo,
  • Juan Cinca‐Cuscullola,
  • Jordi Ordonez‐Llanos,
  • Eulàlia Roig Minguell

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ehf2.12621
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 7, no. 5
pp. 2223 – 2229

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Aims The prognostic value of biomarkers in patients with heart failure (HF) and mid‐range (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has not been widely addressed. The aim of this study was to assess whether the prognostic value of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF‐15) is superior to that of N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (NT‐proBNP) in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. Methods and results Heart failure patients with either HFpEF or HFmrEF were included in the study. During their first visit to the HF unit, serum samples were obtained and stored for later assessment of GDF‐15 and NT‐proBNP concentrations. Patients were followed up by the HF unit. The main endpoint was all‐cause mortality. A total of 311 patients, 90 (29%) HFmrEF and 221 (71%) HFpEF, were included. Mean age was 72 ± 13 years, and 136 (44%) were women. No differences were found in GDF‐15 or NT‐proBNP concentrations between both HF groups. During a median follow‐up of 15 months (Q1–Q3: 9–30 months), 98 patients (32%) died, most (71%) of cardiovascular causes. Patients who died had higher median concentrations of GDF‐15 (4085 vs. 2270 ng/L, P 65 years (P 4330 ng/L), and survival curves were evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier technique. Patients in the highest tertile had the poorest 5 year survival, at 16%, whereas the lowest tertile had the best survival, of 78% (P < 0.001). Conclusions Growth differentiation factor 15 was superior to NT‐proBNP for assessing prognosis in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. GDF‐15 emerges as a strong, independent biomarker for identifying HFmrEF and HFpEF patients with worse prognosis.

Keywords