Premium
The incremental prognostic and clinical value of multiple novel biomarkers in heart failure
Author(s) -
Jackson Colette E.,
Haig Caroline,
Welsh Paul,
Dalzell Jonathan R.,
Tsorlalis Ioannis K.,
McConnachie Alex,
Preiss David,
Anker Stefan D.,
Sattar Naveed,
Petrie Mark C.,
Gardner Roy S.,
McMurray John J.V.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
european journal of heart failure
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 5.149
H-Index - 133
eISSN - 1879-0844
pISSN - 1388-9842
DOI - 10.1002/ejhf.543
Subject(s) - medicine , cardiology , copeptin , hazard ratio , heart failure , confidence interval , cystatin c , natriuretic peptide , troponin , proportional hazards model , confounding , creatinine , myocardial infarction , vasopressin
Aims In recent years there has been an increase in the number of biomarkers in heart failure ( HF ). The clinical role for these novel biomarkers in combination is not clear. Methods and results The following novel biomarkers were measured from 628 patients recently hospitalized with decompensated HF ; mid‐regional pro‐adrenomedullin ( MR‐proADM ), mid‐regional pro‐atrial natriuretic peptide ( MR‐proANP ), copeptin, high‐sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs‐ cTnT ), ST2 , galectin‐3, cystatin C, combined free light chains ( cFLC ) and high sensitivity C‐reactive protein ( hsCRP ). The incremental prognostic value of these novel biomarkers was evaluated within an extensive model containing established predictors of mortality. During a mean ( SD ) follow‐up of 3.2 (1.5) years, 290 (46%) patients died. Elevated concentrations of all novel biomarkers were associated with an increased unadjusted risk of mortality but only two‐thirds were independent predictors following multivariable analysis. Using dichotomized cut‐points from receiver operating characteristic analysis, MR‐proADM , hs‐ cTnT , cFLC , hsCRP , and ST2 remained independent predictors of mortality. Further dichotomization into low (0–2 elevated biomarkers) or high (at least three of the five biomarkers elevated) risk groups provided greatest incremental prognostic value (hazard ratio 2.20, 95% confidence interval 1.37–3.54; P = 0.001) and improved the performance of the model (C‐statistic 0.730 from 0.721, net reclassification index 32.5%). Conclusion The novel biomarkers included in this study added little, if any, incremental prognostic value on their own to a model containing established predictors of mortality. However, following dichotomization, five of the novel biomarkers provided incremental prognostic value. There was a clear gradient in the risk of death with increasing numbers of elevated novel biomarkers, with the presence of at least three identifying patients at greatest risk of mortality.