Evidence Hub

Growth differentiation factor 15: A biomarker to guide empagliflozin treatment in acute myocardial infarction?

Ó. Peiró, A. Bardají, A. Carrasquer, German Cediel, Isabel Serrano, G. Bonet, María Ferrero, Víctor del-Moral-Ronda et al.

International Journal of Cardiology, 2025

275 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Growth Differentiation Factor-15 (GDF-15) has been proven useful as a prognostic biomarker after an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and might be used to refine the selection of high-risk patients that could benefit from empagliflozin therapy. This study aims to compare the prognostic performance of GDF-15 with the inclusion criteria of the EMPACT-MI trial to identify patients at high risk of developing heart failure (HF) after an acute MI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cohort of 275 acute MI patients with GDF-15 concentration available and long-term follow-up was analyzed. Patients were classified into two categories, high risk (HRHF) or no high risk of development of HF (NHRHF), according to two models: 1) GDF-15: HRHF if >1800 ng/L and NHRHF if ≤1800 ng/L; and 2) EMPACT-MI criteria: HRHF if meeting the trial inclusion criteria. Cox regression and ROC curve analyses were used to evaluate the prognostic performance of both models. GDF-15 showed a stronger association with the composite endpoint of all-cause death or first hospitalization for HF (HR 10.7, 95 % CI 5.5-21.0) compared to EMPACT-MI inclusion criteria (HR 3.9, 95 % CI 2.2-6.8). Additionally, GDF-15 had superior discriminative ability (c-index 0.790 vs 0.629, p = 0.004). Similar results were obtained for HF first hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

GDF-15 may have a better discriminative ability than the inclusion criteria of the EMPACT-MI trial to identify those patients at higher risk of death and HF after an…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 275 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free