Galectin-3 and risk of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mengqi Gong, Angel Cheung, Qun Shan Wang, Guangping Li, Christos A. Goudis, George Bazoukis, Gregory Y.H. Lip, Adrian Baranchuk, Panagiotis Korantzopoulos, Konstantinos P. Letsas, Gary Tse, Tong Liu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Galectin-3 is an inflammatory marker that is raised in myocardial fibrosis and inflammation. Recent studies have explored its role in predicting atrial fibrillation (AF) outcomes. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the association between serum concentration of galectin-3 and AF. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database were searched. A total of 280 studies were identified, of which 28 studies involving 10 830 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Results: Galectin-3 is present at higher concentrations in patients with AF than those in sinus rhythm (mean difference [MD] = −0.68 ng/mL, 95% CI: −0.92, −0.44, Z = 5.61, P <.00001). Galectin-3 levels were significantly higher in the persistent AF than in the paroxysmal AF group (MD = −0.94 ng/mL, 95% CI: −1.85, −0.03, Z = 2.04, P =.04). Higher galectin-3 levels were associated with a 45% increase in the odds of developing AF (odds ratio [OR] = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.83, Z = 3.11, P =.002) and risk of AF recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] =1.17, 95% CI: 1.06, 1.29, Z = 3.12, P =.002). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis found that galectin-3 is significantly higher in patients with persistent AF than in those with paroxysmal AF, and can predict both AF development and recurrence after treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere23104
JournalJournal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis
Volume34
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2020
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • atrial fibrillation
  • galectin-3
  • meta-analysis
  • recurrence

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Galectin-3 and risk of atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this