Comparison of Galectin-3, NT-proBNP and Echocardiography Parameters for Assessing Cardiac Function in Heart Failure Patients
10.3969/j.issn.1000-3614.2018.03.007
- VernacularTitle:应用半乳糖凝集素-3、N末端B型利钠肽原和超声心动图评估心力衰竭患者心功能的比较研究
- Author:
LING-Ling YANG
1
;
Shu-Ren LI
;
Qing-Qing HAO
;
Xiao HAO
;
Sha LI
;
Yu-Long MA
;
Yue-Hua ZHANG
;
Wen-Hao DENG
Author Information
1. 河北医科大学研究生学院
- Keywords:
Heart failure;
Galectin-3;
NT-proBNP
- From:
Chinese Circulation Journal
2018;33(3):236-240
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To compare the effect of galectin-3 (Gal-3), NT-proBNP and echocardiography paramerters on assessing cardiac function in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). Methods: A total of 144 patients treated in our hospital from 2016-03 to 2016-11 were enrolled. According to the NYHA classification, the patients were divided into 2 groups: HF group and Normal cardiac function group. n=72 in each group. Basic clinical information was collected, blood levels of Gal-3 and NT-proBNP were examined, echocardiography was conducted to measure left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD). Correlations between Gal-3, NT-proBNP and echocardiography parameters were studied, the abilities of Gal-3, NT-proBNP and echocardiography for estimating HF were compared. Results: Compared with Normal cardiac function group, HF group had increased blood levels of NT-proBNP [3499.5 (1431.3-9088.0) ng/L] vs [384.1 (122.1-1540.5) ng/L] and Gal-3 [3.0 (1.71-5.8) pg/ml] vs [1.9 (1.4-2.6) pg/ml], decreased LVEF [49.5% (42%-58%)] vs [62.5% (59%-67%)], enlarged LVEDD [52.0 (46.3-57.8) mm] vs [46.0 (42.0-49.0) mm] and elevated serum creatinine [113.6 (90.5-152.7) umol/L] vs 82.4 (69.1-97.4) umol/L], all P<0.05. Correlation analysis showed that NT-proBNP and Galectin-3 were positively related to LVEF and LVEDD; Gal-3 and NT-ProBNP had the strongest correlation (r=0.57, P<0.01). The AUC of ROC for Gal-3 was 0.674 (0.584-0.763), for NT-proBNP was 0.837 (0.771-0.902) and for LVEF was 0.806, (0.735-0.878) which implied that NT-proBNP was the most powerful parameter for estimating HF. Conclusion: Gal-3 had the ability to estimate HF and could be used as a biomarker, while its ability was lower than NT-proBNP in clinical practice.
