Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38923432›Full record

SynthesisESC heart failure2024

Circulating brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels and heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Amir Hossein Behnoush, Amirmohammad Khalaji, Andarz Fazlollahpour-Naghibi, Kimia Bagheri, Parmis Goshtasbi, Ghazal Mohseni, Aouatif Erasmia El Kanty, Caterina Vinciguerra, Alessandro Cannavo

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in ESC heart failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Heart-Brain Axis: Subclinical Cardiovascular Changes and Brain Health.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Amir Hossein BehnoushTehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Amirmohammad KhalajiTehran Heart Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-6138-1914
Andarz Fazlollahpour-NaghibiInfectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Health Research Institute, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.
Kimia BagheriInfectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center, Health Research Institute, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.
Parmis GoshtasbiCollege of Letters and Science, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Ghazal MohseniStudent Research Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Aouatif Erasmia El KantyDepartment of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Caterina VinciguerraDepartment of Translational Medicine Sciences, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Alessandro CannavoDepartment of Translational Medicine Sciences, Federico II University of Naples, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsBiomarkers are paramount for managing heart failure (HF) patients as prognostic and therapeutic efficacy index tools. Systemic levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) can add to the HF biomarker scenario, allowing for potentiated efficacy in diagnosis, prognostic stratification, and prediction of patient response to a given therapeutic intervention because BDNF is one of the primary rulers of myocardial function. Yet, whether BDNF is a reliable clinical biomarker awaits clinical validation. Hence, we aimed to answer this relevant question via a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing studies. METHODS AND

resultsInternational databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Web of Science, were comprehensively searched for studies assessing BDNF levels in patients with HF versus non-HF controls or as a prognostic factor for HF complications. Data were extracted and analysed by random-effect meta-analysis. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed to pool the results of studies. We included 11 studies in the final review, among which six underwent meta-analysis. These studies analysed 1420 HF patients, with a mean age of 65.4 ± 11.2 years. Meta-analysis revealed that patients with HF had significantly lower circulating BDNF levels than healthy controls (SMD -2.47, 95% CI -4.39 to -0.54, P-value = 0.01). Moreover, patients with higher New York Heart Association functional classification had lower levels of BDNF. Adverse clinical outcomes such as all-cause mortality and HF rehospitalization were also associated with lower levels of BDNF in individual studies.

conclusionsBDNF levels are decreased in patients with HF. Most importantly, we observed an association between lower BDNF levels and poor prognosis in patients with HF. Our study supports BDNF as an easy-to-dose diagnostic and prognostic biomarker to be implemented in clinical practice for HF. Further studies are warranted to address this ability specifically.

Indexed as

BiomarkersBrain-Derived Neurotrophic FactorHeart FailureHumansPrognosisBDNF protein, humanBiomarkersBrain-Derived Neurotrophic FactorBDNFBiomarkerHeart failureMeta‐analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID38923432
PMCPMC11424347

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.