4.7 Article

Analysis of BAG3 plasma concentrations in patients with acutely decompensated heart failure

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 445, 期 -, 页码 73-78

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.02.048

关键词

BAG3; BCL-2 athanogene 3; Heart failure; Prognosis

资金

  1. Dennis and Marilyn Barry Fellowship in Cardiology
  2. Clark Fund for Cardiac Research Innovation
  3. Roman W. DeSanctis Clinical Scholar Endowment
  4. Hutter Family Professorship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: BCL-2-associated athanogene 3 (BAG3) is a protein implicated in the cardiomyocyte stress response and genesis of cardiomyopathy. Extracellular BAG3 is measurable in patients with heart failure (HF), but the relationship of BAG3 with HF prognosis is unclear. Methods: BAG3 plasma concentrations were measured in 39 acutely decompensated HF patients; the primary endpoint was death at 1 year. Baseline characteristics were compared by vital status and median BAG3 concentration. Correlation of BAG3 with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and other biomarkers was performed. Prognostic value was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: At baseline, median BAG3 was significantly higher in decedents (N = 11) than survivors (N = 28; 1489 ng/mL versus 50 ng/mL; P = 0.04); decedents also had worse renal function and higher median natriuretic peptide (NP) and sST2.BAG3 was not significantly correlated with NPs, mid-regional pro-adrenomedullin, sST2, or eGFR, however. Mortality was increased in patients with supra-median BAG3 (>336 ng/mL; 42.1% versus 15.0%, P = 0.06). In age and LVEF-adjusted Cox proportional hazards, BAG3 remained a significant mortality predictor (HR = 3.20; 95% CI = 134-7.65; P = 0.02); those with supra-median BAG3 had significantly shorter time-to-death (P = 0.04). Conclusion: The stress response protein BAG3 is measurable in patients with ADHF and may be prognostic for death. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据