Comparing biomarker profiles of patients with heart failure: atrial fibrillation vs. sinus rhythm and reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction

Bernadet T. Santema, Marielle Kloosterman, Isabelle C. Van Gelder, Ify Mordi, Chim Lang, Carolyn S. P. Lam, Stefan D. Anker, John G. F. Cleland, Kenneth Dickstein, Gerasimos S. Filippatos, Pim van der Harst, Hans L. Hillege, Jozine M. ter Maaten, Marco Metra, Leong Loke Ng, Piotr Ponikowski, Nilesh J. Samani, Dirk Jan van Veldhuisen, Aeilko H. Zwinderman, Faiez Zannad & 4 others Kevin Damman, Peter van der Meer, Michiel Rienstra, Adriaan A. Voors

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: The clinical correlates and consequences of atrial fibrillation (AF) might be different between heart failure with reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF vs. HFpEF). Biomarkers may provide insights into underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these different heart failure (HF) phenotypes. Methods and results: We performed a retrospective analysis of the BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF), which was an observational cohort. We studied 2152 patients with HFrEF [ejection fraction (EF < 40%)], of which 1419 were in sinus rhythm (SR) and 733 had AF. Another 524 patients with HFpEF (EF ≥50%) were studied, of which 286 in SR and 238 with AF. For the comparison of biomarker profiles, 92 cardiovascular risk markers were measured (Proseek® Olink Cardiovascular III panel). The circulating risk marker pattern observed in HFrEF was different than the pattern in HFpEF: in HFrEF, AF was associated with higher levels of 77 of 92 (84%) risk markers compared to SR; whereas in HFpEF, many more markers were higher in SR than in AF. Over a median follow-up of 21 months, AF was associated with increased mortality risk [multivariable hazard ratio (HR) of 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.48, P = 0.002]; there was no significant interaction between heart rhythm and EF group on outcome. Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, the presence of AF was associated with a homogeneously elevated cardiovascular risk marker profile. In contrast, in patients with HFpEF, the presence of AF was associated with a more scattered risk marker profile, suggesting differences in underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these HF phenotypes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3867-3875
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Heart Journal
Volume39
Issue number43
Early online date22 Aug 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Nov 2018

Fingerprint

Atrial Fibrillation
Heart Failure
Biomarkers
Phenotype
Confidence Intervals
Mortality

Keywords

  • Atrial fibrillation
  • Heart failure
  • Preserved ejection fraction
  • Biomarkers

Cite this

Santema, Bernadet T. ; Kloosterman, Marielle ; Van Gelder, Isabelle C. ; Mordi, Ify ; Lang, Chim ; Lam, Carolyn S. P. ; Anker, Stefan D. ; Cleland, John G. F. ; Dickstein, Kenneth ; Filippatos, Gerasimos S. ; van der Harst, Pim ; Hillege, Hans L. ; ter Maaten, Jozine M. ; Metra, Marco ; Ng, Leong Loke ; Ponikowski, Piotr ; Samani, Nilesh J. ; van Veldhuisen, Dirk Jan ; Zwinderman, Aeilko H. ; Zannad, Faiez ; Damman, Kevin ; van der Meer, Peter ; Rienstra, Michiel ; Voors, Adriaan A. / Comparing biomarker profiles of patients with heart failure : atrial fibrillation vs. sinus rhythm and reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction. In: European Heart Journal. 2018 ; Vol. 39, No. 43. pp. 3867-3875.
@article{79baf01d49c740108105673254c44b0c,
title = "Comparing biomarker profiles of patients with heart failure: atrial fibrillation vs. sinus rhythm and reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction",
abstract = "Aims: The clinical correlates and consequences of atrial fibrillation (AF) might be different between heart failure with reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF vs. HFpEF). Biomarkers may provide insights into underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these different heart failure (HF) phenotypes. Methods and results: We performed a retrospective analysis of the BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF), which was an observational cohort. We studied 2152 patients with HFrEF [ejection fraction (EF < 40{\%})], of which 1419 were in sinus rhythm (SR) and 733 had AF. Another 524 patients with HFpEF (EF ≥50{\%}) were studied, of which 286 in SR and 238 with AF. For the comparison of biomarker profiles, 92 cardiovascular risk markers were measured (Proseek{\circledR} Olink Cardiovascular III panel). The circulating risk marker pattern observed in HFrEF was different than the pattern in HFpEF: in HFrEF, AF was associated with higher levels of 77 of 92 (84{\%}) risk markers compared to SR; whereas in HFpEF, many more markers were higher in SR than in AF. Over a median follow-up of 21 months, AF was associated with increased mortality risk [multivariable hazard ratio (HR) of 1.27; 95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.48, P = 0.002]; there was no significant interaction between heart rhythm and EF group on outcome. Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, the presence of AF was associated with a homogeneously elevated cardiovascular risk marker profile. In contrast, in patients with HFpEF, the presence of AF was associated with a more scattered risk marker profile, suggesting differences in underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these HF phenotypes.",
keywords = "Atrial fibrillation, Heart failure, Preserved ejection fraction, Biomarkers",
author = "Santema, {Bernadet T.} and Marielle Kloosterman and {Van Gelder}, {Isabelle C.} and Ify Mordi and Chim Lang and Lam, {Carolyn S. P.} and Anker, {Stefan D.} and Cleland, {John G. F.} and Kenneth Dickstein and Filippatos, {Gerasimos S.} and {van der Harst}, Pim and Hillege, {Hans L.} and {ter Maaten}, {Jozine M.} and Marco Metra and Ng, {Leong Loke} and Piotr Ponikowski and Samani, {Nilesh J.} and {van Veldhuisen}, {Dirk Jan} and Zwinderman, {Aeilko H.} and Faiez Zannad and Kevin Damman and {van der Meer}, Peter and Michiel Rienstra and Voors, {Adriaan A.}",
note = "Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative: an initiative with support of the Dutch Heart Foundation; Renal Connection to microvascular disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (CVON2014-11 RECONNECT); and European Commission (FP7-242209-BIOSTAT-CHF; EudraCT 2010–020808–29); NHS Education for Scotland/Chief Scientist Office Postdoctoral Clinical Lectureship (PCL/17/07 to I.M.).",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1093/eurheartj/ehy421",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "3867--3875",
journal = "European Heart Journal",
issn = "0195-668X",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "43",

}

Santema, BT, Kloosterman, M, Van Gelder, IC, Mordi, I, Lang, C, Lam, CSP, Anker, SD, Cleland, JGF, Dickstein, K, Filippatos, GS, van der Harst, P, Hillege, HL, ter Maaten, JM, Metra, M, Ng, LL, Ponikowski, P, Samani, NJ, van Veldhuisen, DJ, Zwinderman, AH, Zannad, F, Damman, K, van der Meer, P, Rienstra, M & Voors, AA 2018, 'Comparing biomarker profiles of patients with heart failure: atrial fibrillation vs. sinus rhythm and reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction' European Heart Journal, vol. 39, no. 43, pp. 3867-3875. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy421

Comparing biomarker profiles of patients with heart failure : atrial fibrillation vs. sinus rhythm and reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction. / Santema, Bernadet T.; Kloosterman, Marielle; Van Gelder, Isabelle C.; Mordi, Ify; Lang, Chim; Lam, Carolyn S. P.; Anker, Stefan D.; Cleland, John G. F.; Dickstein, Kenneth; Filippatos, Gerasimos S.; van der Harst, Pim; Hillege, Hans L.; ter Maaten, Jozine M.; Metra, Marco; Ng, Leong Loke; Ponikowski, Piotr; Samani, Nilesh J.; van Veldhuisen, Dirk Jan; Zwinderman, Aeilko H.; Zannad, Faiez; Damman, Kevin; van der Meer, Peter; Rienstra, Michiel; Voors, Adriaan A. (Lead / Corresponding author).

In: European Heart Journal, Vol. 39, No. 43, 14.11.2018, p. 3867-3875.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing biomarker profiles of patients with heart failure

T2 - atrial fibrillation vs. sinus rhythm and reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction

AU - Santema, Bernadet T.

AU - Kloosterman, Marielle

AU - Van Gelder, Isabelle C.

AU - Mordi, Ify

AU - Lang, Chim

AU - Lam, Carolyn S. P.

AU - Anker, Stefan D.

AU - Cleland, John G. F.

AU - Dickstein, Kenneth

AU - Filippatos, Gerasimos S.

AU - van der Harst, Pim

AU - Hillege, Hans L.

AU - ter Maaten, Jozine M.

AU - Metra, Marco

AU - Ng, Leong Loke

AU - Ponikowski, Piotr

AU - Samani, Nilesh J.

AU - van Veldhuisen, Dirk Jan

AU - Zwinderman, Aeilko H.

AU - Zannad, Faiez

AU - Damman, Kevin

AU - van der Meer, Peter

AU - Rienstra, Michiel

AU - Voors, Adriaan A.

N1 - Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative: an initiative with support of the Dutch Heart Foundation; Renal Connection to microvascular disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (CVON2014-11 RECONNECT); and European Commission (FP7-242209-BIOSTAT-CHF; EudraCT 2010–020808–29); NHS Education for Scotland/Chief Scientist Office Postdoctoral Clinical Lectureship (PCL/17/07 to I.M.).

PY - 2018/11/14

Y1 - 2018/11/14

N2 - Aims: The clinical correlates and consequences of atrial fibrillation (AF) might be different between heart failure with reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF vs. HFpEF). Biomarkers may provide insights into underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these different heart failure (HF) phenotypes. Methods and results: We performed a retrospective analysis of the BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF), which was an observational cohort. We studied 2152 patients with HFrEF [ejection fraction (EF < 40%)], of which 1419 were in sinus rhythm (SR) and 733 had AF. Another 524 patients with HFpEF (EF ≥50%) were studied, of which 286 in SR and 238 with AF. For the comparison of biomarker profiles, 92 cardiovascular risk markers were measured (Proseek® Olink Cardiovascular III panel). The circulating risk marker pattern observed in HFrEF was different than the pattern in HFpEF: in HFrEF, AF was associated with higher levels of 77 of 92 (84%) risk markers compared to SR; whereas in HFpEF, many more markers were higher in SR than in AF. Over a median follow-up of 21 months, AF was associated with increased mortality risk [multivariable hazard ratio (HR) of 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.48, P = 0.002]; there was no significant interaction between heart rhythm and EF group on outcome. Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, the presence of AF was associated with a homogeneously elevated cardiovascular risk marker profile. In contrast, in patients with HFpEF, the presence of AF was associated with a more scattered risk marker profile, suggesting differences in underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these HF phenotypes.

AB - Aims: The clinical correlates and consequences of atrial fibrillation (AF) might be different between heart failure with reduced vs. preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF vs. HFpEF). Biomarkers may provide insights into underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these different heart failure (HF) phenotypes. Methods and results: We performed a retrospective analysis of the BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF), which was an observational cohort. We studied 2152 patients with HFrEF [ejection fraction (EF < 40%)], of which 1419 were in sinus rhythm (SR) and 733 had AF. Another 524 patients with HFpEF (EF ≥50%) were studied, of which 286 in SR and 238 with AF. For the comparison of biomarker profiles, 92 cardiovascular risk markers were measured (Proseek® Olink Cardiovascular III panel). The circulating risk marker pattern observed in HFrEF was different than the pattern in HFpEF: in HFrEF, AF was associated with higher levels of 77 of 92 (84%) risk markers compared to SR; whereas in HFpEF, many more markers were higher in SR than in AF. Over a median follow-up of 21 months, AF was associated with increased mortality risk [multivariable hazard ratio (HR) of 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.48, P = 0.002]; there was no significant interaction between heart rhythm and EF group on outcome. Conclusion: In patients with HFrEF, the presence of AF was associated with a homogeneously elevated cardiovascular risk marker profile. In contrast, in patients with HFpEF, the presence of AF was associated with a more scattered risk marker profile, suggesting differences in underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of AF in these HF phenotypes.

KW - Atrial fibrillation

KW - Heart failure

KW - Preserved ejection fraction

KW - Biomarkers

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056672463&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy421

DO - 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy421

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 3867

EP - 3875

JO - European Heart Journal

JF - European Heart Journal

SN - 0195-668X

IS - 43

ER -