4.6 Review

Genetic variation associated with ischemic heart failure: A HuGE review and meta-analysis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 166, Issue 6, Pages 619-633

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwm129

Keywords

epidemiology; heart failure; congestive; meta-analysis; myocardial ischemia; polymorphism; genetic; variation (genetics)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The ischemic etiology of heart failure is an independent prognostic factor associated with worse long-term outcome. Recent evidence indicates a role for genetic susceptibility to ischemic heart failure. The authors systematically reviewed all known case-control studies that investigated the association between genetic variants and ischemic heart failure. Twenty-two articles, which examined 24 gene polymorphisms, were identified. In 22 polymorphisms, the variant form had a functional effect. Twenty-two polymorphisms were variants of genes involved in the maladaptive neurohormonal activation. Seven polymorphisms (ACE 1/D, AGT M235T, ADRA2C Del322-325, ADRB2 Arg16Gly, ADRB2 Gln27Glu, EDN1 Lys198Asn, VEGF G-405C) showed a significant association in individual studies. Five polymorphisms (ACE 1/D, ADRB1 Arg389Gly, ADRB2 Argl6Gly, ADRB2 Gln27Glu, TNF G308A) were examined by more than one study, and meta-analyses were performed. The meta-analyses showed no significant sign of heterogeneity. In all settings, there was no significant association, except for polymorphism ADRB2 Arg16Gly under a recessive model (fixed-effects odds ratio = 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.05, 1.65). Taking into account that ischemic heart failure is a complex disease with multifactorial etiology, a minor contributing pathogenetic role of the investigated gene polymorphisms cannot be totally excluded. Case-control studies that investigate gene-gene and gene-environment interactions might further elucidate the genetics of ischemic heart failure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available