Urinary Marker Profiles in Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction

Koen W Streng; Hans L Hillege; Jozine M Ter Maaten; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Kenneth Dickstein; Nilesh J Samani; Leong L Ng; Marco Metra; Gerasimos S Filippatos; Piotr Ponikowski; Faiez Zannad; Stefan D Anker; Peter van der Meer; Chim C Lang; Adriaan A Voors; Kevin Damman

doi:10.1007/s12265-023-10356-y

Urinary Marker Profiles in Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction

Koen W Streng, Hans L Hillege, Jozine M Ter Maaten, Dirk J van Veldhuisen, Kenneth Dickstein, Nilesh J Samani, Leong L Ng, Marco Metra, Gerasimos S Filippatos, Piotr Ponikowski, Faiez Zannad, Stefan D Anker, Peter van der Meer, Chim C Lang, Adriaan A Voors^*, Kevin Damman

^*Corresponding author voor dit werk

Onderzoeksoutput › Academic › peer review

3 Citaten (Scopus)

24 Downloads (Pure)

Samenvatting

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest different causes of renal dysfunction between heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We therefore studied a wide range of urinary markers reflecting different nephron segments in heart failure patients.

METHODS: In 2070, in chronic heart failure patients, we measured several established and upcoming urinary markers reflecting different nephron segments.

RESULTS: Mean age was 70 ± 12 years, 74% was male and 81% (n = 1677) had HFrEF. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in patients with HFpEF (56 ± 23 versus 63 ± 23 ml/min/1.73 m 2, P = 0.001). Patients with HFpEF had significantly higher values of NGAL (58.1 [24.0-124.8] versus 28.1 [14.6-66.9] μg/gCr, P < 0.001) and KIM-1 (2.28 [1.49-4.37] versus 1.79 [0.85-3.49] μg/gCr, P = 0.001). These differences were more pronounced in patients with an eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73m 2.

CONCLUSIONS: HFpEF patients showed more evidence of tubular damage and/or dysfunction compared with HFrEF patients, in particular when glomerular function was preserved.

Originele taal-2	English
Pagina's (van-tot)	3–12
Aantal pagina's	10
Tijdschrift	Journal of cardiovascular translational research
Volume	17
Vroegere onlinedatum	16-feb.-2023
DOI's	https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-023-10356-y
Status	Published - jun.-2024

Toegang tot document

10.1007/s12265-023-10356-yLicentie: CC BY

Urinary Marker Profiles in Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection FractionFinal publisher's version, 1,02 MBLicentie: CC BY

Handle.net

Permanente koppeling

Citeer dit

Streng, K. W., Hillege, H. L., Ter Maaten, J. M., van Veldhuisen, D. J., Dickstein, K., Samani, N. J., Ng, L. L., Metra, M., Filippatos, G. S., Ponikowski, P., Zannad, F., Anker, S. D., van der Meer, P., Lang, C. C., Voors, A. A., & Damman, K. (2024). Urinary Marker Profiles in Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction. Journal of cardiovascular translational research, 17, 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-023-10356-y

@article{434bac09e0914919ab240e586f6744ee,

title = "Urinary Marker Profiles in Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest different causes of renal dysfunction between heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We therefore studied a wide range of urinary markers reflecting different nephron segments in heart failure patients.METHODS: In 2070, in chronic heart failure patients, we measured several established and upcoming urinary markers reflecting different nephron segments.RESULTS: Mean age was 70 ± 12 years, 74% was male and 81% (n = 1677) had HFrEF. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in patients with HFpEF (56 ± 23 versus 63 ± 23 ml/min/1.73 m 2, P = 0.001). Patients with HFpEF had significantly higher values of NGAL (58.1 [24.0-124.8] versus 28.1 [14.6-66.9] μg/gCr, P < 0.001) and KIM-1 (2.28 [1.49-4.37] versus 1.79 [0.85-3.49] μg/gCr, P = 0.001). These differences were more pronounced in patients with an eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73m 2. CONCLUSIONS: HFpEF patients showed more evidence of tubular damage and/or dysfunction compared with HFrEF patients, in particular when glomerular function was preserved.",

author = "Streng, {Koen W} and Hillege, {Hans L} and {Ter Maaten}, {Jozine M} and {van Veldhuisen}, {Dirk J} and Kenneth Dickstein and Samani, {Nilesh J} and Ng, {Leong L} and Marco Metra and Filippatos, {Gerasimos S} and Piotr Ponikowski and Faiez Zannad and Anker, {Stefan D} and {van der Meer}, Peter and Lang, {Chim C} and Voors, {Adriaan A} and Kevin Damman",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2023. The Author(s).",

year = "2024",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1007/s12265-023-10356-y",

language = "English",

volume = "17",

pages = "3–12",

journal = "Journal of cardiovascular translational research",

issn = "1937-5387",

publisher = "Springer",

}

Streng, KW, Hillege, HL , Ter Maaten, JM , van Veldhuisen, DJ, Dickstein, K, Samani, NJ, Ng, LL, Metra, M, Filippatos, GS, Ponikowski, P, Zannad, F, Anker, SD, van der Meer, P, Lang, CC, Voors, AA & Damman, K 2024, 'Urinary Marker Profiles in Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction', Journal of cardiovascular translational research, vol. 17, blz. 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-023-10356-y

TY - JOUR

T1 - Urinary Marker Profiles in Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction

AU - Streng, Koen W

AU - Hillege, Hans L

AU - Ter Maaten, Jozine M

AU - van Veldhuisen, Dirk J

AU - Dickstein, Kenneth

AU - Samani, Nilesh J

AU - Ng, Leong L

AU - Metra, Marco

AU - Filippatos, Gerasimos S

AU - Ponikowski, Piotr

AU - Zannad, Faiez

AU - Anker, Stefan D

AU - van der Meer, Peter

AU - Lang, Chim C

AU - Voors, Adriaan A

AU - Damman, Kevin

PY - 2024/6

Y1 - 2024/6

N2 - BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest different causes of renal dysfunction between heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We therefore studied a wide range of urinary markers reflecting different nephron segments in heart failure patients.METHODS: In 2070, in chronic heart failure patients, we measured several established and upcoming urinary markers reflecting different nephron segments.RESULTS: Mean age was 70 ± 12 years, 74% was male and 81% (n = 1677) had HFrEF. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in patients with HFpEF (56 ± 23 versus 63 ± 23 ml/min/1.73 m 2, P = 0.001). Patients with HFpEF had significantly higher values of NGAL (58.1 [24.0-124.8] versus 28.1 [14.6-66.9] μg/gCr, P < 0.001) and KIM-1 (2.28 [1.49-4.37] versus 1.79 [0.85-3.49] μg/gCr, P = 0.001). These differences were more pronounced in patients with an eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73m 2. CONCLUSIONS: HFpEF patients showed more evidence of tubular damage and/or dysfunction compared with HFrEF patients, in particular when glomerular function was preserved.

AB - BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest different causes of renal dysfunction between heart failure with reduced (HFrEF) versus preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We therefore studied a wide range of urinary markers reflecting different nephron segments in heart failure patients.METHODS: In 2070, in chronic heart failure patients, we measured several established and upcoming urinary markers reflecting different nephron segments.RESULTS: Mean age was 70 ± 12 years, 74% was male and 81% (n = 1677) had HFrEF. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was lower in patients with HFpEF (56 ± 23 versus 63 ± 23 ml/min/1.73 m 2, P = 0.001). Patients with HFpEF had significantly higher values of NGAL (58.1 [24.0-124.8] versus 28.1 [14.6-66.9] μg/gCr, P < 0.001) and KIM-1 (2.28 [1.49-4.37] versus 1.79 [0.85-3.49] μg/gCr, P = 0.001). These differences were more pronounced in patients with an eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73m 2. CONCLUSIONS: HFpEF patients showed more evidence of tubular damage and/or dysfunction compared with HFrEF patients, in particular when glomerular function was preserved.

U2 - 10.1007/s12265-023-10356-y

DO - 10.1007/s12265-023-10356-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 36795286

SN - 1937-5387

VL - 17

SP - 3

EP - 12

JO - Journal of cardiovascular translational research

JF - Journal of cardiovascular translational research

ER -

Urinary Marker Profiles in Heart Failure with Reduced Versus Preserved Ejection Fraction

Samenvatting

Toegang tot document

Handle.net

Vingerafdruk

Citeer dit