ArticleESC heart failure2020
Growth differentiation factor 15 as mortality predictor in heart failure patients with non-reduced ejection fraction.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic models in populations with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic and prognostic value of circulating biomarkers in heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A Meta-Analysis of Growth Differentiation Factor-15 and Prognosis in Chronic Heart Failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Characteristics Associated With Growth Differentiation Factor 15 in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and the Impact of Pirfenidone.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2022Trial
- Candidate Residual Inflammatory Risk in HFpEF: A Multiorgan Framework for Longitudinal Phenotyping, Trial Enrichment, and Therapeutic Evidence Appraisal.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2026Review
- Left atrial stiffness, exercise intolerance and injury biomarkers predict adverse outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Article
- The Adipokine Hypothesis of Heart Failure With a Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Novel Framework to Explain Pathogenesis and Guide Treatment.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025Review
- The Prognostic Significance of the Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value in Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The level of human epididymis protein 4 is associated with poor prognosis in patients with ejection fraction preserved heart failure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Molecular and Functional Significance of Growth Differentiation Factor-15: A Review on Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Biomarker.Current cardiology reviews · 2025Review
- Article
- Biomarkers in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Perpetually Evolving Frontier.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Prognostic value of growth differentiation factor-15 in heart failure among whole ejection fraction phenotypes.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- Heart Failure with Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction-A Phenotype Waiting to Be Explored.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Prognostic Value of Combined Biomarkers in Patients With Heart Failure: The Heartmarker Score.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Prognostic value of Growth differentiation factors 15 in Acute heart failure patients with preserved ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2023Article
- Mitochondrial stress and mitokines in aging.Aging cell · 2023Review
- A rat model of metabolic syndrome-related heart failure with preserved ejection fraction phenotype: pathological alterations and possible molecular mechanisms.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- New Opportunities in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: From Bench to Bedside… and Back.Biomedicines · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe prognostic value of biomarkers in patients with heart failure (HF) and mid-range (HFmrEF) or preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has not been widely addressed. The aim of this study was to assess whether the prognostic value of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is superior to that of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in patients with HFmrEF or HFpEF. METHODS AND
resultsHeart failure patients with either HFpEF or HFmrEF were included in the study. During their first visit to the HF unit, serum samples were obtained and stored for later assessment of GDF-15 and NT-proBNP concentrations. Patients were followed up by the HF unit. The main endpoint was all-cause mortality. A total of 311 patients, 90 (29%) HFmrEF and 221 (71%) HFpEF, were included. Mean age was 72 ± 13 years, and 136 (44%) were women. No differences were found in GDF-15 or NT-proBNP concentrations between both HF groups. During a median follow-up of 15 months (Q1-Q3: 9-30 months), 98 patients (32%) died, most (71%) of cardiovascular causes. Patients who died had higher median concentrations of GDF-15 (4085 vs. 2270 ng/L, P < 0.0001) and NT-proBNP (1984 vs. 1095 ng/L, P < 0.0001). A Cox multivariable model identified New York Heart Association Functional Class III (P = 0.04), systolic blood pressure (P = 0.01), left atrial diameter (P = 0.03), age >65 years (P < 0.0001), and GDF-15 concentrations (P = 0.01) but not NT-proBNP as independent predictors of all-cause mortality. The area under the curve was 0.797 for the basic model including NT-proBNP, and the area under the curve comparing the overall model was 0.819, P = 0.016 (DeLong's test). Integrated discrimination improvement index after the inclusion of GDF-15 in the model with the mortality risk factors was 0.033; that is, the ability to predict death increased by 3.3% (P = 0.004). Net reclassification improvement was 0.548 (P < 0.001); that is, the capacity to improve the classification of the event (mortality) was 54.8%. GDF-15 concentrations were divided in tertiles (<1625, 1625-4330, and >4330 ng/L), and survival curves were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier technique. Patients in the highest tertile had the poorest 5 year survival, at 16%, whereas the lowest tertile had the best survival, of 78% (P < 0.001).
conclusionsGrowth differentiation factor 15 was superior to NT-proBNP for assessing prognosis in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF. GDF-15 emerges as a strong, independent biomarker for identifying HFmrEF and HFpEF patients with worse prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.