The sST2 level is an independent influencing factor associated with atrial fibrillation in heart failure patients: a case-control study
Introduction
People over 65 years accounts for about 16.7% of the total population, and this figure is expected to reach 25% by 2050 (1). Organ aging and functional decline caused by aging leads to a variety of cardiovascular diseases among the elderly, such as heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF), and coronary heart disease. HF is the final stage of most cardiovascular diseases with a high mortality ranging from 5–50% (2,3).
Statistically, HF was often complicated with arrhythmias, of which AF is the most common complication. And AF can lead to chronic HF, increasing HF-related mortality. It was reported that AF can increase the risk of all-cause death and readmission in patients with chronic HF (4) and lead to a poorer prognosis in HF patients (5,6). Soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) is a member of the interleukin (IL)-1 receptor family. It can inhibit the protective effect of the IL-33/trans-membrane ST2 (ST2L) signaling pathway on cardiomyocytes by binding to its ligand IL-33, resulting in myocardial hypertrophy, fibrosis, and cardiac dysfunction (7). sST2 is closely related to myocardial dysfunction, myocardial fibrosis, and ventricular remodeling. More and more studies have shown that sST2 has higher diagnostic value than other HF markers, and its level is not affected by sex, age, obesity, body mass index, hypertension, and renal function (7-9). A previous study has shown that there is a significant correlation between sST2 levels and all-cause mortality in HF patients (10). A follow-up study found that sST2 levels can be used to predict the incidence of HF and sudden death in healthy people (11). Two meta-analyses by Aimo et al. support the predictive value of sST2 in acute or chronic HF (12,13). The findings of these studies indicate that there is a correlation between sST2 and HF. Thus far, there are few reports on the changes of sST2 levels in HF patients complicated with AF, and the relevant clinical significance remains elusive.
In the present study, we conducted a case-control study to analysis the expression level and clinical significance of sST2 in elderly HF patients complicated with AF, which will strengthen our understanding of sST2 in HF patients, and help to optimize the clinical strategies in the management of HF patients complicated with AF. We present the following article in accordance with the STROBE reporting checklist (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-22-470/rc).
Methods
Patients
The present study was a case-control study. A total of 306 patients hospitalized at Beijing Anzhen Hospital from June 2019 to June 2020 were included in this study, including 164 males and 142 females, with an average age of 74.21±6.85 years. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (I) the diagnostic criteria of HF were in accordance with the Chinese Guidelines for The Diagnosis and Treatment of Heart Failure 2018 (14); (II) the diagnostic criteria of AF were in accordance with the AF: Current Awareness and Treatment Recommendations-2018 (15); and (III) patients’ aged ≥65 years. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (I) organic fibromypathy (e.g., liver fibrosis, renal fibrosis, pulmonary fibrosis); (II) severe infection; (III) autoimmune diseases and malignant tumors; (IV) previous history of AF with no recurrence of sinus rhythm after treatment; and (V) previous cardiac surgery within 6 months of admission (including percutaneous coronary intervention, valve replacement, cardiac pacemaker implantation). HF patients were divided into the HF group and the HF-AF group (HF patient complicated with AF group). According to the Heart Failure Guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (16), HF patients were classified into the following three subgroups: HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), and HF with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF), based on the left ventricular injection fraction (LVEF) of HF patients. Heart function was graded according to the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification (17).
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Anzhen Hospital (No. 2020-047II). All participants were informed of the research plan and provided signed informed consent.
Basic data collection
Demographic information, including sex and age, were collected, as well as clinical history and symptoms, physical examination, and previous medical records. The collection of laboratory examination data included hemoglobin (Hb), serum creatinine (Scr), NT-pro-brain natriuretic peptide(NT-proBNP), and sST2. The collection of heart ultrasound data included LVEF, left ventricular diameter (LVD), and left atrial diameter (LAD).
All the data were collected and recorded by two recorders independently.
Statistical analysis
SPSS 19.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for data processing. After normality test, the normal distribution data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Differences between the HF and HF-AF group were compared by independent samples t-test, and differences among HFrEF, HFpEF and HFmrEF groups were compared by ANOVA. Skewness distribution metrological data were described by median and interquartile range (IQR; Q25–Q75). The significance of intergroup data was analyzed using non-parametric rank-sum test (Kruskal-Wallis test). Counting data were analyzed χ2-test. Person analysis was used to analyze the correlation of continuous data, and spearman analysis was used to analyze the correlation of non-continuous data Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify the independent influencing factors associated with HF patients complicated with AF. A two-tailed P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Baseline patient characteristics
A total of 306 HF patients were enrolled in the present study, including 186 patients in the HF group and 120 patients in the HF-AF group. The findings indicated that there was no significant difference in body mass index, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, diabetes, cardiomyopathy, valvular disease, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), erythrocytes, leukocytes, Hb, platelets, D-dimer, and glomerular filtration rate between the HF and HF-AF groups. There were significant differences in sex, age, smoking, drinking, history of hypertension, history of coronary heart disease, NYHA classification, LVEF, LAD, LVD, platelets, NT-proBNP, and sST2 between the HF and HF-AF groups (P<0.05) (Table 1). The sST2 level of patients in the HF-AF group was higher than that in the HF group, and the difference was statistically significant.
Table 1
| Variables | HF group (N=186) | HF-AF group (N=120) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 72 [68–78] | 75 [68–81] | 0.035 |
| Male, n (%) | 112 (60.2) | 52 (43.3) | 0.004 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 24.1 (21.7–26.6) | 24.6 (22.3–27.0) | 0.243 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 128 [118–140] | 130 (122–144) | 0.149 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 74 [70–80] | 80 [70–81] | 0.058 |
| Smoker, n (%) | 83 (44.6) | 26 (21.7) | <0.001 |
| Drinker, n (%) | 51 (27.4) | 11 (9.2) | <0.001 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 0.016 | ||
| None | 78 (41.9) | 63 (52.5) | |
| Grade I | 9 (4.8) | 5 (4.2) | |
| Grade II | 36 (19.3) | 8 (6.7) | |
| Grade III | 63 (33.9) | 44 (36.7) | |
| Diabetes, n (%) | 61 (32.8) | 29 (24.2) | 0.106 |
| Cardiomyopathy, n (%) | 12 (6.5) | 2 (1.7) | 0.050 |
| Coronary heart disease, n (%) | 160 (86.0) | 43 (35.8) | <0.001 |
| Valvular disease, n (%) | 6 (3.2) | 6 (5.0) | 0.435 |
| NYHA, n (%) | 0.016 | ||
| Grade II | 112 (60.2) | 58 (48.3) | |
| Grade III | 58 (31.2) | 39 (32.5) | |
| Grade IV | 16 (8.6) | 23 (19.2) | |
| LVEF, n (%) | 0.004 | ||
| <40% | 44 (23.7) | 20 (16.7) | |
| 41–49% | 36 (19.4) | 10 (8.3) | |
| ≥50% | 106 (57.0) | 90 (75.0) | |
| LVD (mm) | 49 [46–56] | 48 [45–53] | 0.022 |
| LAD (mm) | 38 [35–41] | 43 [40–47] | <0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | 19 [13–26] | 16 [12–28] | 0.226 |
| WBC (×109/L) | 6.2 (5.1–7.6) | 5.9 (5.0–6.8) | 0.123 |
| RBC (×1012/L) | 4.2 (3.8–4.6) | 4.2 (3.9–4.5) | 0.675 |
| Hemoglobin (g/L) | 131 [119–142] | 131 [120–141] | 0.977 |
| Platelets (×109/L) | 176 [147–210] | 155 [125–187] | 0.001 |
| Serum creatinine (μmol/L) | 73.4 (60.8–87.4) | 74.2 (62.8–90.5) | 0.710 |
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | 677 (202–2,035) | 1,511 (996–4,169) | <0.001 |
| sST2 (ng/mL) | 23.7 (16.3–35.9) | 40.6 (25.9–53.6) | <0.001 |
| D-dimer (ng/mL) | 447.3 (317.0–771.5) | 463.8 (318.1–872.1) | 0.787 |
| Glomerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 73.8 (59.0–85.8) | 68.1 (52.1–82.8) | 0.053 |
Data is presented as mean ± standard deviation or numbers and percentages. HF, heart failure; AF, atrial fibrillation; NYHA, New York Heart Association; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVD, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LAD, left atrial diameter; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; WBC, white blood cell; RBC, red blood cell; NT-proBNP, NT-pro-brain natriuretic peptide; sST2, soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2.
Baseline data of the HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF subgroups
There were significant differences in body mass index, systolic blood pressure, cardiomyopathy, NYHA grade, LVEF, LVD, LAD, Scr, sST2, NT-proBNP, glomerular filtration rate in the HFrEF (LVEF <40%), HFmrEF (LVEF 41–49%), and HFpEF (LVEF ≥50%) groups (P<0.05) (Table 2).
Table 2
| Variables | HFrEF (N=64) | HFmrEF (N=46) | HFpEF (N=196) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 73.5 (68.0–78.0) | 72.5 (67.0–80.0) | 74.0 (68.0–80.0) | 0.532 |
| Male, n (%) | 40 (62.5) | 26 (56.5) | 97 (49.5) | 0.187 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 23.5 (21.1–25.1) | 24.0 (21.5–26.3) | 24.6 (22.4–27.2) | 0.021 |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 126 [118–134] | 128 [120–139] | 130 [120–144] | 0.035 |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 76 [72–81] | 72 [69–80] | 76 [70–81] | 0.234 |
| Smoker, n (%) | 27 (42.2) | 18 (39.1) | 64 (32.7) | 0.348 |
| Drinker, n (%) | 15 (23.4) | 14 (30.4) | 33 (16.8) | 0.096 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 0.139 | |||
| None | 37 (57.8) | 21 (45.7) | 82 (41.8) | |
| Grade I | 2 (3.1) | 4 (8.7) | 10 (5.1) | |
| Grade II | 8 (12.5) | 10 (21.7) | 26 (13.3) | |
| Grade III | 17 (26.6) | 11 (23.9) | 78 (39.8) | |
| Diabetes, n (%) | 19 (29.7) | 18 (39.1) | 53 (27.0) | 0.278 |
| Cardiomyopathy, n (%) | 9 (14.0) | 1 (2.2) | 4 (2.0) | <0.001 |
| Coronary heart disease, n (%) | 42 (65.6) | 36 (78.2) | 125 (63.8) | 0.184 |
| Valvular disease, n (%) | 3 (4.6) | 2 (4.3) | 7 (3.6) | 0.915 |
| NYHA, n (%) | <0.001 | |||
| Grade II | 17 (26.6) | 26 (56.5) | 126 (64.3) | |
| Grade III | 22 (34.4) | 16 (34.8) | 59 (30.1) | |
| Grade IV | 25 (39.1) | 4 (8.7) | 11 (5.6) | |
| LVD (mm) | 58.0 (54.2–64.0) | 52.0 (49.0–57.0) | 47.0 (44.0–49.0) | <0.001 |
| LAD (mm) | 43.0 (38.2–46.0) | 40.0 (38.0–44.0) | 39.0 (35.0–43.0) | <0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | 21.9 (13.8–28.5) | 19.35 (12.2–23.7) | 17.0 (13.0–27.1) | 0.314 |
| WBC (×109/L) | 6.4 (5.3–7.5) | 6.1 (4.9–7.6) | 6.0 (5.2–7.4) | 0.746 |
| RBC (×1012/L) | 4.3 (3.8–4.5) | 4.2 (3.9–4.6) | 4.1 (3.8–4.5) | 0.390 |
| Hemoglobin (g/L) | 130.0 (121.2–143.0) | 132.5 (120.7–147.0) | 131.0 (120.0–140.0) | 0.436 |
| Platelets (×109/L) | 171.5 (117.0–209.0) | 160.0 (141.7–200.5) | 168.0 (138.0–208.0) | 0.959 |
| Serum creatinine (μmol/L) | 84.4 (71.6–101.1) | 73.6 (58.7–89.9) | 72.5 (59.6–82.7) | <0.001 |
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | 2,400 (1,277–5,701) | 1,084 (606–2,776) | 785 (198–1,941) | <0.001 |
| sST2 (ng/mL) | 47.3 (24.5–53.6) | 30.6 (20.7–39.3) | 25.8 (16.5–38.9) | <0.001 |
| D-dimer (ng/mL) | 560.8 (355.0–1,071.0) | 523.6 (321.14–953.7) | 436.0 (302.0–703.0) | 0.055 |
| Glomerular filtration rate (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 61.9 (47.9–78.3) | 70.5 (56.2–88.2) | 72.3 (59.3–86.0) | 0.014 |
Data is presented as mean ± standard deviation or numbers and percentages. HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; HFmrEF, heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction; HFpEF, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; NYHA, New York Heart Association; LVD, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LAD, left atrial diameter; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; WBC, white blood cell; RBC, red blood cell; NT-proBNP, NT-pro-brain natriuretic peptide; sST2, soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2.
Correlation analysis between sST2 and other indicators
Spearman correlation analysis indicated that sST2 level in the HF group was positively correlated with age, smoking history, coronary heart disease, NYHA grade, LVD, LAD, platelets, Scr, NT-proBNP, and D-dimer (r>0, P<0.05), and negatively correlated with cardiomyopathy, valvular disease, LVEF, and glomerular filtration rate (r<0, P<0.05). In the HF-AF group, sST2 level was positively correlated with age, NYHA grade, LVD, Scr, NT-proBNP, and D dimer, and negatively correlated with LVEF, Hb, and glomerular filtration rate (r<0, P<0.05) (Table 3).
Table 3
| Variables | HF group (n=186) | HF-AF group (n=120) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| r value | P value | r value | P value | ||
| Sex | 0.045 | 0.539 | –0.068 | 0.462 | |
| Age | 0.169* | 0.021 | 0.287** | 0.001 | |
| Systolic blood pressure | 0.041 | 0.578 | 0.008 | 0.932 | |
| Diastolic blood pressure | 0.094 | 0.203 | 0.043 | 0.642 | |
| Smoking | 0.204** | 0.005 | 0.077 | 0.406 | |
| Drinking | 0.125 | 0.090 | 0.051 | 0.578 | |
| Hypertension | –0.017 | 0.820 | 0.150 | 0.101 | |
| Diabetes | –0.023 | 0.754 | –0.143 | 0.118 | |
| Cardiomyopathy | –0.210** | 0.004 | 0.019 | 0.839 | |
| Coronary heart disease | 0.158* | 0.031 | –0.026 | 0.777 | |
| Valvular disease | –0.156* | 0.034 | –0.026 | 0.779 | |
| NYHA | 0.147* | 0.045 | 0.470** | <0.0001 | |
| LVEF | –0.345** | <0.0001 | –0.259** | 0.004 | |
| LVD | 0.200** | 0.006 | 0.311** | 0.001 | |
| LAD | 0.231** | 0.001 | 0.107 | 0.249 | |
| ALT | 0.100 | 0.174 | –0.021 | 0.819 | |
| WBC | 0.136 | 0.064 | 0.145 | 0.114 | |
| RBC | –0.073 | 0.320 | –0.090 | 0.330 | |
| Hemoglobin | –0.107 | 0.148 | –0.188* | 0.039 | |
| Platelets | 0.145* | 0.049 | –0.037 | 0.688 | |
| Serum creatinine | 0.195** | 0.008 | 0.320** | <0.0001 | |
| NT-proBNP | 0.474** | <0.0001 | 0.540** | <0.0001 | |
| D-dimer | 0.336** | <0.0001 | 0.322** | <0.0001 | |
| Glomerular filtration rate | –0.213** | 0.003 | –0.283** | 0.002 | |
| Body mass index | –0.093 | 0.209 | –0.065 | 0.484 | |
*, P<0.05; **, P<0.01. sST2, soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2; HF, heart failure; AF, atrial fibrillation; NYHA, New York Heart Association; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVD, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LAD, left atrial diameter; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; WBC, white blood cell; RBC, red blood cell; NT-proBNP, NT-pro-brain natriuretic peptide.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of AF in patients with HF
Statistically significant variables in the baseline data comparison between the HF group and the HF-AF group were taken as independent variables, and the occurrence of AF was included in the logistic regression model as a dependent variable. Logistic regression analysis showed that the history of coronary heart disease [odds ratio (OR): 0.176, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.081–0.380, P<0.0001], LVEF (OR: 0.956, 95% CI: 0.915–0.998, P=0.039), LVD (OR: 1.156, 95% CI: 1.059–1.261, P=0.001), LAD (OR: 0.761, 95% CI: 0.695–0.833, P<0.0001), and sSt2 (OR: 0.942, 95% CI: 0.917–0.967, P<0.0001) were independent influencing factors for AF in HF patients (Table 4).
Table 4
| Variables | Regression coefficient | Standard error | Wald λ2 | P value | Odds ratio | 95% confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Coronary heart disease | –1.738 | 0.393 | 19.565 | <0.0001 | 0.176 | 0.081 | 0.380 |
| LVEF | –0.045 | 0.022 | 4.279 | 0.039 | 0.956 | 0.915 | 0.998 |
| LVD (mm) | 0.145 | 0.045 | 10.494 | 0.001 | 1.156 | 1.059 | 1.261 |
| LAD (mm) | –0.273 | 0.046 | 34.886 | <0.0001 | 0.761 | 0.695 | 0.833 |
| sST2 | –0.060 | 0.014 | 19.815 | <0.0001 | 0.942 | 0.917 | 0.967 |
Statistically significant variables in the baseline data comparison between the HF group and the HF-AF group were taken as independent variables, and the variables with no statistical difference are not included in the table. HF, heart failure; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVD, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter; LAD, left atrial diameter; sST2, soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2; AF, atrial fibrillation.
Discussion
AF is a common complication in patients with HF. Therefore, it is important to study the value of markers, particularly in elderly patients with HF complicated with AF. sST2 is a clinical biomarker reflecting the pathophysiological process, which is related to myocardial fibrosis and ventricular remodeling. It has good clinical value for the diagnosis and prognosis of HF and other cardiovascular diseases (18). At present, there are few published studies on sST2 in HF-AF patients. The present study was conducted to investigate the changes of sST2 in elderly HF patients with AF, and to evaluate the value of sST2 in these patients.
The findings of the present study indicated that sST2 and NT-ProBNP levels in the HF-AF group were higher than those in the HF group, and the LVD and LAD were statistically different between the two groups. ST2L binds to IL-33, a specific ligand, and activates the IL-33/ST2L signaling pathway, which is considered to be a mechanical activation system. When cardiomyocytes are stimulated by mechanical stretch, IL-33 molecules are released and form a receptor complex with ST2L on the cardiomyocyte membrane to activate downstream pathway signals through paracrine action and the signals then play a protective role in the heart. When myocardial cells are damaged by mechanical stress, such as excessive sST2 in the serum, myocardial tissue will suffer from myocardial remodeling and cardiac dysfunction due to lack of adequate IL-33 protection, which will exacerbate HF (19). Therefore, sST2 is regarded as a marker of cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and myocardial fibrosis (20), and suggests that the sST2 level could be related to the damage and remodeling of the ventricle and atrium.
Epidemiological studies have shown that HFpEF has gradually become the main manifestation of HF worldwide, accounting for 52–71% cases (21,22). However, the pathogenesis of HFpEF is not clear. Some studies have suggested that HFpEF is related to diastolic filling disorder and increased end-diastolic pressure caused by impaired left ventricular systolic function and myocardial compliance (23,24). Other study suggests that there is a relationship between age, ex, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cardiomyopathy, and HFpEF (25). In the present study, systolic blood pressure and body mass index in HFpEF group were higher than those in HFrEF and HFmrEF groups, and the difference was statistically significant. Although there was no significant difference for females, advanced age, and hypertension among the HFpEF, HFrEF, and HFmrEF groups, the proportion of females, elderly patients, and patients with hypertension in HFpEF group was higher than that in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups. Increased cardiovascular stiffness is one of the important pathophysiological mechanisms in the progression of HFpEF. Females with hypertension are more likely to develop left ventricular hypertrophy; however, due to cardiomyocyte hypertrophy, apoptosis, and collagen deposition, the heart will have morphological and structural changes with age, and females are more likely to have increased ventricular stiffness and decreased compliance and diastolic function (26).Elevated body mass index increases the risk of hypertension, cardiomyopathy, coronary heart disease, and AF, all of which are associated with HFpEF. It is not clear whether obesity can independently cause ejection fraction retention of HF. Sun et al. reported that body mass index is positively correlated with left ventricular end-diastolic volume, left ventricular posterior wall thickness, left ventricular mass, and mitral annulus velocity (mitral annulus velocity) (27). In their study, Yuksel et al. selected 30 obese patients (body mass index >30 kg/m2) for echocardiographic examination before and 3 months after weight loss (28). Echocardiography showed that after weight loss, peak early diastolic filling velocity increased, late diastolic peak filling velocity decreased, the ratio of the two groups increased, deceleration time and isovolumic relaxation time shortened, and mitral annulus motion velocity increased . Therefore, weight control could reverse the changes of left ventricular structure and diastolic dysfunction in obese patients. We reported that the sST2 and NT-proBNP levels in the HFpEF group were significantly lower than those in the HFrEF and HFmrEF groups. IL-33 is the functional ligand of ST2. The IL-33/ST2L signaling pathway plays a role in anti-myocardial fibrosis and cardiomyocyte hypertrophy. However, when cardiomyocytes induced by biomechanical stress produce a large amount of sST2, the endogenous myocardial protection of IL-33/ST2L is blocked, resulting in myocardial remodeling and ventricular dysfunction, which ultimately leads to an increased risk of death. This implies that sST2 could be a new marker of myocardial fibrosis and ventricular remodeling (29). The higher the NT-proBNP level, the lower the ejection fraction and the worse the cardiac function. The findings of the present study indicate that sST2 and NT-proBNP levels are important indicators to reflect the severity of HF.
In the present study, correlation analysis showed that the sST2 level in the HF-AF group was positively correlated with NT-proBNP, but negatively correlated with LVEF. A study has found that hemodynamic disorders in AF patients aggravate atrial structural remodeling, and result in atrial irregular contraction, excessive energy consumption leading to ventricular dysfunction, as well as the release of ventricular BNP in the blood (30). The increase of NT-proBNP concentration in AF patients could be related to pathological changes, such as atrial enlargement, fibrosis, and lipid degeneration, which suggest that changes in sST2 and NT-ProBNP levels could be used to determine myocardial fibrosis and abnormal systolic function.
In the present study, logistic regression analysis showed that coronary heart disease history, LVD, and sST2 were independent influencing factors for HF complicated with AF. Kim et al. found that sST2 was not only associated with left atrial fibrosis but also the only independent risk factor for AF after correcting traditional risk factors, which was consistent with the results of this study (31). Tan et al. also found that increased sST2 can be used as a marker of recurrence after radiofrequency ablation in persistent AF patients, and that the patients with sST2 ≥39.25 ng/mL are more likely to develop recurrence within a year (32). Atrial structural remodeling is the basis of AF. LAD has been found to be closely related to the occurrence and persistence of AF, and it has been reported that LAD is an independent risk factor for the development of AF (33). Related study has shown that the internal diameter of the left atrium is one of the determinants of the number of re-entrant wavelets in the atrium at the same time. The larger the internal diameter of the left atrium, the more re-entrant wavelets, and the easier it is to trigger AF. When inflammation occurs in atrial muscle tissue, the electrophysiology of cardiomyocytes changes, promoting the formation of re-entrant wavelets and inducing AF (34).
The findings of the present study indicated that sST2 provides a reference index for HF complicated with AF, demonstrating the clinical value and significance of sST2, and provides a certain basis for clinical diagnosis and prediction. However, the study has some limitations. First, this study was affected by the time of the study, and the patients were only followed up for no longer than 1 year. Second, the present study was a retrospective study, so only a single plasma sST2 level of patients was analyzed. Long-term and continuous monitoring of SST2 level of patients might provide more clinical value. Further studies are warranted.
Conclusions
The sST2 level is an independent influencing factor associated with AF in HF patients, which may favor to optimize the clinical strategies in the management of HF patients complicated with AF.
Acknowledgments
Funding: The present study was supported by the Doctor Fund of Shanxi Cardiovascular Hospital (No. XYS2020B003).
Footnote
Reporting Checklist: The authors have completed the STROBE reporting checklist. Available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-22-470/rc
Data Sharing Statement: Available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-22-470/dss
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-22-470/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Anzhen Hospital (No. 2020-047II). All participants were informed of the research plan and provided signed informed consent.
Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
References
- Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, et al. Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. Lancet 2009;374:1196-208. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Tomasoni D, Adamo M, Lombardi CM, et al. Highlights in heart failure. ESC Heart Fail 2019;6:1105-27. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ko DT, Tu JV, Masoudi FA, et al. Quality of care and outcomes of older patients with heart failure hospitalized in the United States and Canada. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:2486-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dries DL, Exner DV, Gersh BJ, et al. Atrial fibrillation is associated with an increased risk for mortality and heart failure progression in patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a retrospective analysis of the SOLVD trials. Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;32:695-703. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wang TJ, Larson MG, Levy D, et al. Temporal relations of atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure and their joint influence on mortality: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2003;107:2920-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mamas MA, Caldwell JC, Chacko S, et al. A meta-analysis of the prognostic significance of atrial fibrillation in chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2009;11:676-83. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Zhang X, Schulz BL, Punyadeera C. The current status of heart failure diagnostic biomarkers. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2016;16:487-500. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Lotierzo M, Dupuy AM, Kalmanovich E, et al. sST2 as a value-added biomarker in heart failure. Clin Chim Acta 2020;501:120-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kuster N, Huet F, Dupuy AM, et al. Multimarker approach including CRP, sST2 and GDF-15 for prognostic stratification in stable heart failure. ESC Heart Fail 2020;7:2230-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Zhang R, Zhang Y, Zhang J, et al. The prognostic value of plasma soluble ST2 in hospitalized Chinese patients with heart failure. PLoS One 2014;9:e110976. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wang TJ, Wollert KC, Larson MG, et al. Prognostic utility of novel biomarkers of cardiovascular stress: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2012;126:1596-604. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Aimo A, Vergaro G, Passino C, et al. Prognostic Value of Soluble Suppression of Tumorigenicity-2 in Chronic Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis. JACC Heart Fail 2017;5:280-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Aimo A, Vergaro G, Ripoli A, et al. Meta-Analysis of Soluble Suppression of Tumorigenicity-2 and Prognosis in Acute Heart Failure. JACC Heart Fail 2017;5:287-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Heart Failure Group of Chinese Society of Cardiology of Chinese Medical Association, Chinese Heart Failure Association of Chinese Medical Doctor Association, Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Cardiology. Chinese guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of heart failure 2018. Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi 2018;46:760-89. [PubMed]
- Huang CX, Zhang S, Huang DJ, et al. Current knowledge and management recommendations of atrial fibrillation 2018. Chinese Journal of Cardiac Arrhythmias 2018;32:315-68.
- Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure. Kardiol Pol 2016;74:1037-147. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fisher JD. New York Heart Association Classification. Arch Intern Med 1972;129:836. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Minamisawa M, Motoki H, Izawa A, et al. Comparison of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Outpatients With Prior Myocardial Infarction. Int Heart J 2016;57:11-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Sanada S, Hakuno D, Higgins LJ, et al. IL-33 and ST2 comprise a critical biomechanically induced and cardioprotective signaling system. J Clin Invest 2007;117:1538-49. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Sun RR, Lu L, Liu M, et al. Biomarkers and heart disease. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2014;18:2927-35. [PubMed]
- Shimokawa H, Miura M, Nochioka K, et al. Heart failure as a general pandemic in Asia. Eur J Heart Fail 2015;17:884-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Steinberg BA, Zhao X, Heidenreich PA, et al. Trends in patients hospitalized with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction: prevalence, therapies, and outcomes. Circulation 2012;126:65-75. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Ambrosy AP, Fonarow GC, Butler J, et al. The global health and economic burden of hospitalizations for heart failure: lessons learned from hospitalized heart failure registries. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63:1123-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Pfeffer MA, Shah AM, Borlaug BA. Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction In Perspective. Circ Res 2019;124:1598-617. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Brouwers FP, de Boer RA, van der Harst P, et al. Incidence and epidemiology of new onset heart failure with preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction in a community-based cohort: 11-year follow-up of PREVEND. Eur Heart J 2013;34:1424-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Redfield MM, Jacobsen SJ, Borlaug BA, et al. Age- and gender-related ventricular-vascular stiffening: a community-based study. Circulation 2005;112:2254-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Sun T, Xie J, Zhu L, et al. Left Ventricular Hypertrophy and Asymptomatic Cardiac Function Impairment in Chinese Patients with Simple Obesity using Echocardiography. Obes Facts 2015;8:210-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Yuksel IO, Akar Bayram N, Koklu E, et al. Assessment of Impact of Weight Loss on Left and Right Ventricular Functions and Value of Tissue Doppler Echocardiography in Obese Patients. Echocardiography 2016;33:854-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- AbouEzzeddine OF, McKie PM, Dunlay SM, et al. Suppression of Tumorigenicity 2 in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction. J Am Heart Assoc 2017;6:004382. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Okar S, Kaypakli O, Şahin DY, et al. Fibrosis Marker Soluble ST2 Predicts Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence after Cryoballoon Catheter Ablation of Nonvalvular Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation. Korean Circ J 2018;48:920-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kim SY, Cho S, Lee JH, et al. Myocardial Protective Effect of Antegrade Cardioplegic Cardiac Arrest Versus Ventricular Fibrillation During Cardiopulmonary Bypass on Immediate Postoperative and Mid-Term Left Ventricular Function in Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Surgery. Artif Organs 2017;41:988-96. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Tan R, Yu H, Han X, et al. Circulating Soluble Suppression of Tumorigenicity 2 Predicts Recurrence After Radiofrequency Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation. Front Cardiovasc Med 2021;8:653312. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Vaziri SM, Larson MG, Benjamin EJ, et al. Echocardiographic predictors of nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. The Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 1994;89:724-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fujimoto Y, Yodogawa K, Takahashi K, et al. Noninvasive evaluation of reverse atrial remodeling after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation by P wave dispersion. Heart Vessels 2017;32:1375-81. [Crossref] [PubMed]
(English Language Editor: R. Scott)
