Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct;7(5):2223-2229.
doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12621. Epub 2020 Jun 26.

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

Affiliations

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

Ana Belen Mendez Fernandez et al. ESC Heart Fail. 2020 Oct.

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 < 0.0001) and NT-proBNP (1984 vs. 1095 ng/L, P < 0.0001). A Cox multivariable model identified New York Heart Association Functional Class III (P = 0.04), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.01), left atrial diameter (P = 0.03), age >65 years (P < 0.0001), and GDF-15 concentrations (P = 0.01) but not NT-proBNP as independent predictors of all-cause mortality. The area under the curve was 0.797 for the basic model including NT-proBNP, and the area under the curve comparing the overall model was 0.819, P = 0.016 (DeLong's test). Integrated discrimination improvement index after the inclusion of GDF-15 in the model with the mortality risk factors was 0.033; that is, the ability to predict death increased by 3.3% (P = 0.004). Net reclassification improvement was 0.548 (P < 0.001); that is, the capacity to improve the classification of the event (mortality) was 54.8%. GDF-15 concentrations were divided in tertiles (<1625, 1625-4330, and >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: Biomarkers; Chronic heart failure; GDF-15; HFmrEF; HFpEF.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan–Meier curves showing cumulative survival according to tertiles of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF‐15) concentrations.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lam CSP, Solomon SD. The middle child in heart failure: heart failure with mid‐range ejection fraction (40–50%). Eur J Heart Fail 2014; 16: 1049–1055. - PubMed
    1. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, Bueno H, Cleland JGF, Coats AJS, Falk V, González‐Juanatey JR, Harjola VP, Jankowska EA, Jessup M, Linde C, Nihoyannopoulos P, Parissis JT, Pieske B, Riley JP, Rosano GM, Ruilope LM, Ruschitzka F, Rutten FH, van der Meer P, Authors/Task Force Members., Document Reviewers . 2016 ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2016; 18: 891–975. - PubMed
    1. Altaie S, Khalife W. The prognosis of mid‐range ejection fraction heart failure: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. ESC Heart Fail J 2018; 5: 1008–1016. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lauritsen J, Gustafsson F, Abdulla J. Characteristics and long‐term prognosis of patients with heart failure and mid‐range ejection fraction compared with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. ESC Heart Fail J 2018; 5: 685–694. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lopatin Y. Heart failure with mid‐range ejection fraction and how to treat it. Card Fail Rev 2018; 4: 9–13. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types