English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  This study sought to compare the predictive value of NT-proBNP, sST2 and MMPs in HF with different ejection fractions from a population in southern China.    Methods  A cross-sectional study was conducted on 113 HF patients admitted to Fujian Provincial Hospital from December 2016 to March 2018.The patients were divided into three subgroups: 60 cases in HFpEF group (LVEF≥50%), 28 cases in HFmrEF group (41% ≤ LVEF≤49%) and 25 cases in HFrEF group (LVEF≤40%). ELISA method was applied to detect the concentrations of sST2, MMP-2 and MMP-9. Electrochemical luminescence immunoassay was applied to detect the concentration of plasma NT-proBNP. Univariate and multivariate Cox and logistic regression models were used to analyze the diagnostic significance of these plasma biomarkers in HF patients. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were used to assess the prognostic value of sST2 in the incidence of long-term adverse events during study.    Results  This study showed that plasma sST2 levels in HFrEF or HFmrEF patients were significantly higher than in HFpEF patients. Plasma levels of MMP-2 and MMP-9 in HFrEF patients were apparently higher than in HFpEF or HFmrEF patients. For the diagnosis of HFpEF, the AUC of NT-proBNP was higher than that of sST2, MMP-2 and MMP-9, which were 0.881, 0.717, 0.705 and 0.597, respectively. For the diagnosis of HFmrEF, the AUC of plasma sST2 was higher than that of MMP-2, MMP-9 and NT-proBNP, which were 0.799, 0.678, 0.676 and 0.793, respectively. For the diagnosis of HFrEF, the AUC of plasma NT-proBNP, sST2, MMP-2, and MMP-9 were 0.945, 0.820, 0.814, and 0.774 respectively. Spearman correlation analysis showed that plasma sST2 levels were significantly correlated with plasma MMP-2, MMP-9 and NT-proBNP levels. Further logistic regression analysis showed that except MMP-9, the biomarkers sST2 (OR = 1.960), MMP-2 (OR = 0.805) and NT-proBNP (OR = 0.002) were all independent risk factors for patients with heart failure. Survival analysis results suggested that for patients with HFmrEF, a higher level of plasma sST2 (≥ 0.332 ng/ml at admission) may predict a higher risk of endpoint events and a lower survival rate ( P  < 0.025).    Conclusions  The circulating biomarkers sST2, MMP-2 and NT-proBNP were all independent risk factors for patients with heart failure. The sST2 can be a useful biomarker with both diagnostic and prognostic value in patients with HFmrEF. The higher sST2 level in patients with heart failure was related to a higher incidence of combined endpoint outcome.

Comparison of predictive value of NT-proBNP, sST2 and MMPs in heart failure patients with different ejection fractions