Growth Differentiation Factor 15 in Cardiovascular Diseases: Predicting Bleeding after Cardiac Surgery and Beyond That!

The Prognostic Potential of Growth Differentiation Factor-15 on Bleeding Events and Patient Outcome after Cardiac Surgery—A Prospective Cohort Study

Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), also known as macrophage inhibitory cytokine-1, is a cytokine from the transforming growth factor β superfamily, the mature protein is secreted as a 25 kDa disulfide-linked dimer, which is strongly expressed and secreted in response to hypoxia, oxidative stress, inflammation, tissue injury, and remodeling.[1] Under pathological conditions, GDF-15 is expressed in various types of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular cells (macrophages, vascular smooth muscle cells, adipocytes, cardiomyocytes, endothelial cells, fibroblasts, prostate tissue, or intestinal mucosa) and therefore, GDF-15 levels provide information from both cardiac and extracardiac pathways.[2]

GDF-15 has gained attention during the recent years, particularly as a risk prediction biomarker ([Fig. 1]). As for January 2022, more than 800 articles have been published in the last 3 years (period: 2019–2022) investigating GDF-15. An important part of the research on GDF-15 has focused on its potential relationship with worse prognosis in cardiovascular diseases. Thus, in outpatients with cardiovascular risk factors, GDF-15 was associated with an increased risk of stroke independently of conventional risk factors and other prognostic markers.[3] GDF-15 (among other circulating biomarkers) effectively predicted the risk of long-term mortality in patients with acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.[4] Similarly, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), baseline GDF-15 was a strong marker of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events in previous studies,[5] [6] and in patients with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction, GDF-15 was also related with cardiovascular death or heart failure.[7] Indeed, a meta-analysis showed a significant association between GDF-15 levels and mortality (relative risk [RR]: 6.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.81–7.84) or recurrent myocardial infarction (RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.72–2.21) in ACS patients.[8] Even in patients with suspected myocardial infarction, GDF-15 concentrations at emergency department have demonstrated to predict all-cause mortality and discriminate patients with very low mortality risk.[9]

Fig. 1 Diseases associated with GDF-15. GDF-15, growth differentiation factor 15.

Despite these findings, one of the main target uses of GDF-15 is the prediction of bleeding risk in different clinical scenarios ([Table 1]). Thus, in patients with ACS from the PLATO trial, higher baseline levels of GDF-15 were associated with raised risks of major noncoronary artery bypass graft-related bleeding beyond established risk factors.[10] The same population was analyzed at 1 month after ACS, and again, elevated GDF-15 was related to the risk of major bleeding.[11] In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the impact of GDF-15 on bleeding outcomes has been extensively investigated.[12] Certainly, this interest motivated the inclusion of GDF-15 in the ABC (age, biomarkers, clinical history) bleeding score, which was derived and validated in the ARISTOTLE and RE-LY clinical trial cohorts.[13] In AF patients from the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48, elevated GDF-15 levels at baseline were independently associated with a higher risk of major bleeding,[14] and a substantial increase in GDF-15 measured over 1 year was still associated with bleeding.[15] More recently, a massive screening of potential biomarkers associated with major bleeding in patients with AF from the ARISTOTLE and RE-LY revealed that GDF-15 and other biomarkers increased the risk of bleeding.[16]

Table 1 Summary of studies about GDF-15 and bleeding outcomes

Study	Main disease of the included population	Sample size	Main results
Hagström et al[10]	Acute coronary syndrome	16,876	Increased GDF-15* was associated with higher risk of major bleeding (HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.25–1.51). *Per 1 SD increase in baseline ln GDF-15.
Lindholm et al[11]	Acute coronary syndrome	4,049	Increased GDF-15* at 1 month was associated with higher risk of non-CABG-related major bleeding (aHR: 3.38, 95% CI: 1.89–6.06). *Defined as GDF-15 > 1,800 ng/L.
Berg et al[14]	Atrial fibrillation	8,705	Increased GDF-15 was associated with higher risk of major bleeding (aHR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.60–2.81)*/(aHR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.46–2.04)** *Comparing the highest vs. lowest tertile category (≥1,800 vs. <1,200 ng/L). **Per 1 SD increase in baseline log GDF-15.
Oyama et al[15]	Atrial fibrillation	6,308	Increased GDF-15* at baseline and 12 months was associated with higher risk of major bleeding (aHR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.02–1.92). *Per 1 SD increase in log2-transformed GDF-15.
Siegbahn et al[16]	Atrial fibrillation	4,200 (identification cohort) 1,368 (replication cohort)	Increased GDF-15* was associated with higher risk of major bleeding (aHR: 1.195, 95% CI: 0.925–1.544) (identification cohort)/(aHR: 1.574, 95% CI: 1.293–1.915) (replication cohort). *Comparing the highest vs. lowest quartile category.
Song et al[17]	Intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, controls	Incident ICH (220 cases, 244 controls) Incident SAH (79 cases, 261 controls)	Increased GDF-15* was associated with higher risk of incident ICH (aOR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.52–3.41) and incident SAH (aOR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.29–3.59). *Per 1 SD increase in log2-transformed GDF-15.
Skowrońska et al[18]	Pulmonary embolism	77	Patients with major bleeding/CRNMB had higher median GDF-15 levels (4,577 [3,588–11,877] vs. 2,179 [1,133–4,613] ng/L, p = 0.03). Increased GDF-15* increased risk of composite adverse outcomes** (aOR: 8.9, 95% CI: 1.03–77.76). *Defined as GDF-15 > 1,680 ng/L. **Including major bleeding/CRNMB.
Mulder et al[19]	Cancer	574	Increased GDF-15* was associated with higher risk of major bleeding (aHR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.91–4.11), CRNMB (aHR: 1.67, 95% CI: 1.08–2.58), and any bleeding (aHR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.38–3.25). *Comparing the highest vs. lowest tertile category.

Abbreviations: aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CRNMB, clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; HR, hazard ratio; ICH, intracerebral hemorrhage; OR, odds ratio; SD, standard deviation; SAH, subarachnoid hemorrhage.

However, GDF-15 is also related to bleeding in patients with other diseases. For example, a case/control study showed that high circulating GDF-15 levels at baseline were associated with incident intracerebral hemorrhage and incident subarachnoid hemorrhage, independently of the main risk factors.[17] Another study found that GDF-15 concentrations were higher in patients with pulmonary embolism who experienced bleeding during hospitalization compared with those who did not experience bleeding, and GDF-15 was associated with a good prediction for bleeding (c-index: 0.783, 95% CI: 0.62–0.946).[18] Finally, GDF-15 also predicted bleeding in cancer patients receiving thromboprophylaxis from the AVERT trial.[19]

In this issue of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Kazem and colleagues reported the outcomes of 504 prospective patients undergoing cardiac valve and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.[20] In brief, preoperative GDF-15 levels strongly associated with any intra- and postoperative red blood cell transfusion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.31–2.00) and ≥2 intra- and postoperative red blood cell transfusions (aOR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.39–2.21). Importantly, preoperative GDF-15 levels were also related with the risk of composite of bleeding events (aOR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.01–1.76), major or clinically relevant minor bleeding (aOR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.08–4.46), and ≥2 red blood cell transfusions (aOR: 4.07, 95% CI: 1.78–9.28) during the first postoperative year. The authors therefore concluded that the preoperative GDF-15 level was an independent predictor for intra- and postoperative major bleeding, and major bleeding during the first year after cardiac surgery.[20]

The mechanisms underlying the association of GDF-15 and bleeding have not been fully discovered yet. One hypothesis is that GDF-15 specifically inhibits platelet integrin activation, thus increasing the risk of bleeding.[21] However, this is not specific of a particular condition but could be presented in different diseases. Since GDF-15 is expressed in response to diverse signals (oxidative stress, inflammation, tissue injury, etc.), it can be equally predictive not only for bleeding, but also for stroke, mortality, heart failure, etc., as well as noncardiac events. Indeed, one of the classic criticisms of this biomarker is its nonspecific nature since it is upregulated because of injury of organs such as the liver, kidney, heart, and lung. In consequence, it has been associated with several conditions. Previous studies demonstrated that increased GDF-15 levels are related with glaucoma,[22] periodontal disease,[23] mental disorders (including poststroke depression and Alzheimer's disease),[24] [25] different cancer types (lung, gastrointestinal, and colorectal),[26] [27] and prognosis in COVID-19.[28] [29] [30] Thus, the predictive ability of biomarkers (and biomarker-based scores) beyond endpoints which they were designed for, could be very similar to what they were originally proposed (in the case of GDF-15, bleeding).[31] For this reason, it is not clear whether GDF-15 rises as reflective of a particular clinical outcome or is simply reflective of a “sick heart” or “sick patient.” Such nonspecificity as well as the challenges of biomarker testing (cost, assay variability, diurnal and temporal variation, etc.) may discourage the incorporation of GDF-15 in guidelines related to antithrombotic therapy, where simplicity and practicality for decision making should be prioritized.[32] [33] [34]

Moreover, a limitation of GDF-15 is the lack of real-world studies given that most of the evidence is derived from randomized clinical trials. This is relevant for the particular issue of bleeding since one recent study suggested that differences in patient characteristics and risk profiles of patients from observational studies are important contributors to the differences in bleeding outcomes between clinical practice and randomized trials.[35] In this sense, the study by Kazem et al adds new evidence to the field coming from a real-world population, what is needed at the moment.

In summary, GDF-15 is one promising biomarker amongst many others, but we are still far from its widespread use and some limitations need to be overcome. Factors such as the practicality of use, assay availability, elevated costs, and assay variability hamper its use in everyday clinical practice. Furthermore, aging and incident comorbidities increase the risk of bleeding, and risk assessment should be a dynamic process (and not a static “one-off” assessment). Therefore, the use of GDF-15 must be considered along with other variables that may increase the risks of bleeding (and other adverse nonbleeding events).

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

• References

• 1 Ceelen D, Voors AA, Tromp J. et al. Pathophysiological pathways related to high plasma growth differentiation factor 15 concentrations in patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2022; 24 (02) 308-320
• 2 Wollert KC, Kempf T, Wallentin L. Growth differentiation factor 15 as a biomarker in cardiovascular disease. Clin Chem 2017; 63 (01) 140-151
• 3 Negishi K, Hoshide S, Shimpo M, Kanegae H, Kario K. Growth differentiation factor-15 predicts death and stroke event in outpatients with cardiovascular risk factors: the J-HOP study. J Am Heart Assoc 2021; 10 (24) e022601
• 4 Gao Y, Bai X, Lu J. et al. Prognostic value of multiple circulating biomarkers for 2-year death in acute heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Front Cardiovasc Med 2021; 8: 779282
• 5 Lindholm D, James SK, Gabrysch K. et al. Association of multiple biomarkers with risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality after acute coronary syndromes: a secondary analysis of the PLATO biomarker study. JAMA Cardiol 2018; 3 (12) 1160-1166
• 6 Mo Q, Zhuo L, Liao Z, Li R, Chen Y, Geng J. Serum GDF-15 predicts in-hospital mortality and arrhythmic risks in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Clin Appl Thromb Hemost 2022; 28: 10760 296211063875
• 7 Zelniker TA, Jarolim P, Silverman MG. et al. Prognostic role of GDF-15 across the spectrum of clinical risk in patients with NSTE-ACS. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019; 57 (07) 1084-1092
• 8 Wang Y, Zhen C, Wang R, Wang G. Growth-differentiation factor-15 predicts adverse cardiac events in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med 2019; 37 (07) 1346-1352
• 9 Walter J, Nestelberger T, Boeddinghaus J. et al; APACE investigators. Growth differentiation factor-15 and all-cause mortality in patients with suspected myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol 2019; 292: 241-245
• 10 Hagström E, James SK, Bertilsson M. et al; PLATO Investigators. Growth differentiation factor-15 level predicts major bleeding and cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes: results from the PLATO study. Eur Heart J 2016; 37 (16) 1325-1333
• 11 Lindholm D, Hagström E, James SK. et al. Growth differentiation factor 15 at 1 month after an acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased risk of major bleeding. J Am Heart Assoc 2017; 6 (04) e005580
• 12 Marín F, Roldán V. Biomarkers: GDF-15 and risk stratification in atrial fibrillation. Nat Rev Cardiol 2015; 12 (01) 8-9
• 13 Hijazi Z, Oldgren J, Lindbäck J. et al; ARISTOTLE and RE-LY Investigators. The novel biomarker-based ABC (age, biomarkers, clinical history)-bleeding risk score for patients with atrial fibrillation: a derivation and validation study. Lancet 2016; 387 (10035): 2302-2311
• 14 Berg DD, Ruff CT, Jarolim P. et al. Performance of the ABC scores for assessing the risk of stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation in ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48. Circulation 2019; 139 (06) 760-771
• 15 Oyama K, Giugliano RP, Berg DD. et al. Serial assessment of biomarkers and the risk of stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial. Eur Heart J 2021; 42 (17) 1698-1706
• 16 Siegbahn A, Lindbäck J, Hijazi Z. et al. Multiplex protein screening of biomarkers associated with major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulation. J Thromb Haemost 2021; 19 (11) 2726-2737
• 17 Song L, Söderholm M, Svensson EH, Borné Y, Engström G. Circulating growth differentiation factor 15 levels are associated with risk of both intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhage. Front Neurol 2021; 12: 664010
• 18 Skowrońska M, Skrzyńska M, Machowski M. et al. Plasma growth differentiation factor 15 levels for predicting serious adverse events and bleeding in acute pulmonary embolism: a prospective observational study. Pol Arch Intern Med 2020; 130 (09) 757-765
• 19 Mulder FI, Bosch FTM, Carrier M. et al. Growth differentiation factor-15 for prediction of bleeding in cancer patients. J Thromb Haemost 2022; 20 (01) 138-144
• 20 Kazem N, Hammer A, Koller L. et al. The prognostic potential of growth differentiation factor-15 on bleeding events and patient outcome after cardiac surgery-a prospective cohort study. Thromb Haemost 2022; 122 (05) 703-714
• 21 Rossaint J, Vestweber D, Zarbock A. GDF-15 prevents platelet integrin activation and thrombus formation. J Thromb Haemost 2013; 11 (02) 335-344
• 22 Lin JB, Sheybani A, Santeford A, De Maria A, Apte RS. Increased aqueous humor GDF15 is associated with worse visual field loss in pseudoexfoliative glaucoma patients. Transl Vis Sci Technol 2020; 9 (10) 16
• 23 Stemmler A, Symmank J, Steinmetz J, von Brandenstein K, Hennig CL, Jacobs C. GDF15 supports the inflammatory response of PdL fibroblasts stimulated by P. gingivalis LPS and concurrent compression. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22 (24) 13608
• 24 Zang Y, Zhu Z, Xie Y. et al. Serum growth differentiation factor 15 levels are associated with depression after ischemic stroke. J Am Heart Assoc 2022; 11 (01) e022607
• 25 Wu PF, Zhang XH, Zhou P, Yin R, Zhou XT, Zhang W. Growth differentiation factor 15 is associated with Alzheimer's disease risk. Front Genet 2021; 12: 700371
• 26 Srour B, Kaaks R, Johnson T, Hynes LC, Kühn T, Katzke VA. Ageing-related markers and risks of cancer and cardiovascular disease: a prospective study in the EPIC-Heidelberg cohort. Eur J Epidemiol 2022; 37 (01) 49-65
• 27 Jovani M, Liu EE, Paniagua SM. et al. Cardiovascular disease related circulating biomarkers and cancer incidence and mortality: is there an association?. Cardiovasc Res 2021; DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvab282.
• 28 Alserawan L, Peñacoba P, Orozco Echevarría SE. et al. Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15): a novel biomarker associated with poorer respiratory function in COVID-19. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11 (11) 1998
• 29 Teng X, Zhang J, Shi Y. et al. Comprehensive profiling of inflammatory factors revealed that growth differentiation factor-15 is an indicator of disease severity in COVID-19 patients. Front Immunol 2021; 12: 662465
• 30 Myhre PL, Prebensen C, Strand H. et al. Growth differentiation factor 15 provides prognostic information superior to established cardiovascular and inflammatory biomarkers in unselected patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Circulation 2020; 142 (22) 2128-2137
• 31 Camelo-Castillo A, Rivera-Caravaca JM, Marín F, Vicente V, Lip GYH, Roldán V. Predicting adverse events beyond stroke and bleeding with the ABC-Stroke and ABC-Bleeding Scores in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Murcia AF project. Thromb Haemost 2020; 120 (08) 1200-1207
• 32 Esteve-Pastor MA, Roldán V, Rivera-Caravaca JM, Ramírez-Macías I, Lip GYH, Marín F. The use of biomarkers in clinical management guidelines: a critical appraisal. Thromb Haemost 2019; 119 (12) 1901-1919
• 33 Lip GYH, Banerjee A, Boriani G. et al. Antithrombotic therapy for atrial fibrillation: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2018; 154 (05) 1121-1201
• 34 Chao TF, Joung B, Takahashi Y. et al. 2021 focused update consensus guidelines of the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society on Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: executive summary. Thromb Haemost 2022; 122 (01) 20-47
• 35 de Vries TAC, Hirsh J, Xu K. et al. Apixaban for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: why are event rates higher in clinical practice than in randomized trials?-a systematic review. Thromb Haemost 2020; 120 (09) 1323-1329

Publication History

Received: 03 February 2021

Accepted: 08 February 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
10 February 2022

Article published online:
05 May 2022