The diagnostic and prognostic value of galectin‐3 in patients at risk for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: results from the DIAST‐CHF study

• Published in: ESC Heart Failure Vol. 8; no. 2; pp. 829 - 841
• Main Authors: Trippel, Tobias Daniel, Mende, Meinhard, Düngen, Hans‐Dirk, Hashemi, Djawid, Petutschnigg, Johannes, Nolte, Kathleen, Herrmann‐Lingen, Christoph, Binder, Lutz, Hasenfuss, Gerd, Pieske, Burkert, Wachter, Rolf, Edelmann, Frank
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.04.2021; John Wiley and Sons Inc; Wiley
• Subjects: Aged; Biomarkers; Blood Proteins; Cardiac arrhythmia; Cardiovascular disease; Coronary vessels; Creatinine; Diabetes; Ejection fraction; Female; Galectin 3; Galectins; Heart failure; Heart Failure - diagnosis; HFpEF; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Mortality; Original; Original s; Peptides; Prognosis; Risk prediction; Stroke Volume; Variables; Germany; Heart failure; Biomarkers; Risk prediction; Galectin-3; HFpEF; Mortality
• ISSN: 2055-5822; 2055-5822
• DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.13174

Aims Galectin‐3 (Gal‐3) predicts long‐term outcome among patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The ability of Gal‐3 to diagnose and predict incident HFpEF in a cohort at risk for HFpEF is of particular interest. We aimed to determine the association between Gal‐3 and clinical manifestations of HFpEF, the relationship between Gal‐3 and all‐cause mortality, or the composite of cardiovascular hospitalization and death. Methods and results The observational Diast‐CHF study included patients aged 50 to 85 years with ≥1 risk factor for HF (e.g. hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and atherosclerotic disease) or previously suspected HF. Patients were followed for 10 years. The association between Gal‐3, evidence of diastolic dysfunction, and Framingham criteria for HF was examined. All deaths and hospitalizations were adjudicated as cardiovascular or non‐cardiovascular. The analysis population was composed of 1386 subjects (67 years old, 50.9% female). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to diagnose HFpEF was 0.71. At a cut‐off value of 13.57 ng/mL, sensitivity was 0.61 and specificity was 0.73 for Gal‐3, and the diagnostic power to detect HFpEF was superior to N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.59, P > 0.001). Baseline Gal‐3 was associated with risk factors for HF (P < 0.001). Higher levels of Gal‐3 predicted incident HFpEF (P < 0.05), adjusted all‐cause mortality (P < 0.001), and the adjusted composite of cardiovascular hospitalization and death (P < 0.001), both independent from N‐terminal pro‐brain natriuretic peptide. Conclusions Gal‐3 differentiated patients with HFpEF from an overall cohort of well‐characterized patients with risk factors for HFpEF. Independent of other factors, baseline Gal‐3 levels were associated with a higher risk for incident HFpEF, mortality, or the composite of cardiovascular hospitalization and death over 10 year follow‐up. In conjunction with clinical parameters, Gal‐3 adds a statistically significant value for the diagnosis of HFpEF within this study, yet the clinical relevance remains debatable.