Clinical Utility of Survivin (BIRC5), Novel Cardiac Biomarker, as a Prognostic Tool Compared to High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein, Heart-Type Fatty Acid Binding Protein and Revised Lee Score in Elderly Patients Scheduled for Major Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Prospective Pilot Study

Open access


Background: Recent studies indicate that survivin (BIRC5) is sensitive to the existence of previous ischemic heart disease, since it is activated in the process of tissue repair and angiogenesis. The aim of this study was to determine the potential of survivin (BIRC5) as a new cardiac biomarker in the preoperative assessment of cardiovascular risk in comparison with clinically accepted cardiac biomarkers and one of the relevant clinical risk scores.

Methods: We included 79 patients, female (41) and male (38), with the mean age of 71.35±6.89. Inclusion criteria: extensive non-cardiac surgery, general anesthesia, age >55 and at least one of the selected cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, smoking and positive family history). Exclusion criteria: emergency surgical procedures and inability to understand and sign an informed consent. Blood sampling was performed 7 days prior surgery and levels of survivin (BIRC5), hsCRP and H-FABP were measured.

Results: Revised Lee score was assessed based on data found in patients’ history. Levels of survivin (BIRC5) were higher in deceased patients (P<0.05). It showed AUC=0.807 (95% CI, P<0.0005, 0.698–0.917), greater than both H-FABP and revised Lee index, and it increases the mortality prediction when used together with both biomarkers and revised Lee score. The determined cut-off value was 4 pg/mL and 92.86% of deceased patients had an increased level of survivin (BIRC5), (P=0.005).

Conclusions: Survivin (BIRC5) is a potential cardiac biomarker even in elderly patients without tumor, but it cannot be used independently. Further studies with a greater number of patients are needed.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. The Joint Task Force on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). ESC/ESA Guidelines on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management. Eur Heart J 2014; 35: 2383–431.

  • 2. Goldman L. Cardiac risk and complications of noncardiac surgery. Ann Intern Med 1983; 98(4): 504–13.

  • 3. Detsky AS Abrams HB McLaughlin JR Drucker DJ Sasson Z Johnston N et al. Predicting cardiac complications in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. J Gen Intern Med 1986; 1: 211–9.

  • 4. Lee TH Marcantonio ER Mangione CM Thomas EJ Polanczyk CA Cook EF et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation 1999; 100(10): 1043–9.

  • 5. Fleisher LA Beckman JA Brown KA Calkins H Chaikof E Fleischmann KE et al. ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Peri operative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Society of Echocardiography American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Heart Rhythm Society Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50: 1707–32.

  • 6. Bilimoria KY Liu Y Paruch JL Zhou L Kmjecik TE Ko CY et al. Development and Evaluation of the Universal ACS NSQIP Surgical Risk Calculator: A Decision Aid and Informed Consent Tool for Patients and Surgeons. J Am Coll Surg 2013; 217(5): 833–42.

  • 7. Klingenberg R Aghlmandi S Räber L Gencer B Nanchen D Heg D et al. Improved risk stratification of patients with acute coronary syndromes using a combination of hsTnT NT-proBNP and hsCRP with the GRACE score. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2016 (DOI: 10.1177/2048872616684678).

  • 8. Hamza M Demerdash S Ibrahim M. Heart-type fatty acid-binding protein as a diagnostic biochemical marker for early detection of myocardial infarction Acta Cardiol 2016; 71(5): 537–41.

  • 9. Janković RJ Marković DZ Sokolović DT Zdravković I Sorbello M. Clinical indices and biomarkers for perioperative cardiac risk stratification: an update. Minerva Anestesiol 2017; 83(4): 392–401.

  • 10. Sanhueza C Wehinger S Castillo Bennett J Valenzuela M Owen GI Quest AFG et al. The twisted survivin connection to angiogenesis. Mol Cancer 2015; 14: 198.

  • 11. Lee PJH Rudenko D Kuliszewski MA Liao C Kabir MG Connelly KA et al. Survivin gene therapy attenuates left ventricular systolic dysfunction in doxorubicin cardiomyopathy by reducing apoptosis and fibrosis. Cardiovasc Res 2014; 101: 423–33.

  • 12. Delvaeye M De Vriese A Zwerts F Betz I Moons M Autiero M et al. Role of the 2 zebrafish survivin genes in vasculo-angiogenesis neurogenesis cardiogenesis and hematopoiesis. BMC Dev Biol 2009; 9: 25.

  • 13. Dobrzycka B Mackowiak-Matejczyk B Terlikowska KM Kulesza-Bronczyk B Kinalski M Terlikowksi SJ et al. Prognostic significance of pretreatment VEGF survivin and Smac/DIABLO serum levels in patients with serous ovarian carcinoma. Tumour Biol 2015; 36(6): 4157–65.

  • 14. Maddox TM. Preoperative cardiovascular evaluation for non cardiac surgery. Mt Sinai J Med 2005; 72(3): 185–92.

  • 15. Mihajlović J Pechlivanoglou P Miladinov-Mikov M Živković S Postma MJ. Cancer incidence and mortality in Serbia 1999–2009. BMC Cancer 2013; 13: 18.

  • 16. Urošević J Odović G Rapaić D Davidović M Trgovčević S Milovanović V. Quality of life of the elderly in urban and rural areas in Serbia Kvalitet ivota starih u urbanoj i ruralnoj sredini u Srbiji. Vojnosanit Pregl 2015; 72: 968–74.

  • 17. Tzeng CWD Cooper AB Vauthey JN Curley SA Aloia TA. Predictors of morbidity and mortality after hepatectomy in elderly patients: analysis of 7621 NSQIP patients. HPB 2014; 16: 459–68.

  • 18. Latkauskas T Rudinskait G Kurtinaitis J Janciauskiene R Tamelis A Saladyinskas Z et al. The impact of age on post-operative outcomes of colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgical treatment. BMC Cancer 2005; 5: 153.

  • 19. Turrentine FE Wang H Simpson VB Jones RS. Surgical risk factors morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 203: 865–77.

  • 20. D'Apuzzo MR Pao AW Novicoff WM Browne JA. Age as an independent risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality after total joint arthroplasty in patients 90 years of age or older. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 477–80.

  • 21. Lees MC Merani S Tauh K Khadaroo RG. Perioperative factors predicting poor outcome in elderly patients following emergency general surgery: a multivariate regression analysis. Can J Surg 2015; 58: 312–7.

  • 22. Hernandez AF Whellan DJ Stroud S Sun JL O'Connor CM Jollis JG. Outcomes in heart failure patients after major noncardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 44: 1446–53.

  • 23. Hoftman N Prunean A Dhillon A Danovitch GM Lee MS Gritsch HA et al. Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) is a useful tool for evaluation of perioperative cardiac morbidity in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2013; 96(7): 639–43.

  • 24. Davis C Tait G Carroll J Wijeysundera DN Beattie WS. The Revised Cardiac Risk Index in the new millennium: a single-centre prospective cohort re-evaluation of the original variables in 9519 consecutive elective surgical patients. Can J Anaesthesiol 2013; 60(9): 855–63.

  • 25. Dover M Tawfick W Hynes N Sultan S. Cardiac risk assessment morbidity prediction and outcome in the vascular intensive care unit. Vasc Endovasc Surg 2013; 47(8): 585–94.

  • 26. Bae MH Jang SY Choi WS Kim KH Park SH Lee JH et al. A new revised cardiac risk index incorporating fragmented QRS complex as a prognostic marker in patients undergoing noncardiac vascular surgery. Am J Cardiol 2013; 112(1): 122–7.

  • 27. Niizeki T Takeishi Y Arimoto T Takabatake T Nozaki N Hirono O et al. Heart-type fatty acid-binding protein is more sensitive than troponin T to detect the ongoing myocardial damage in chronic heart failure patients. J Cardiac Fail 2007; 13(2): 120–7.

  • 28. Thielmann M Pasa S Holst T Wendt D Dohle DS Demircioglu E et al. Heart-Type Fatty Acid Binding Protein and Ischemia-Modified Albumin for Detection of Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 104(1): 130–7.

  • 29. Willemsen RT Van Severen E Vandervoort PM Grieten L Buntinx F Glatz JF et al. Heart-type fatty acid binding protein (H-FABP) in patients in an emergency department setting suspected of acute coronary syndrome: optimal cut-off point diagnostic value and future opportunities in primary care. Eur J Gen Pract 2015; 21(3): 156–63.

  • 30. Sari M Kilic H Karakurt Ariturk O Yazihan N Akdemir R. Diabetic patients have increased perioperative cardiac risk in heart-type fatty acid-binding protein-based assessment. Med Princ Pract 2015; 24(1): 53–7.

  • 31. Banu S Tanveer S Manjunath CN. Comparative study of high sensitivity troponin T and heart-type fatty acid-binding protein in STEMI patients. Saudi J Biol Sci 2015; 22(1): 56–61.

  • 32. Jeong JH Seo YH Ahn JY Kin KH Seo JY Kim M et al. The prognostic value of serum levels of heart-type fatty acid binding protein and high sensitivity C-reactive protein in patients with increased levels of amino-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide. Ann Lab Med 2016; 36(5): 420–6.

  • 33. Scrutinio D Guido G Guida P Passantino A Angiletta D Santoro D et al. Combined use of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide for risk stratification of vascular surgery patients. Ann Vasc Surg 2014; 28(6): 1522–9.

  • 34. Harutyunyan MJ Mathiasen AB Winkel P Gotze JP Hansen JF Hildebrandt P et al. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide in patients with stable coronary artery disease: a prognostic study within the CLARICOR Trial. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 2011; 71(1): 52–62.

  • 35. Ozisik K Ozisik P Yildirim E Misirlioglu M Tuncer S. Expression of antiapoptotic survivin and aven genes in rat heart tissue after traumatic brain injury. Transplant Proc 2006; 38: 2784–7.

  • 36. Fernández JG Rodríguez DA Valenzuela M Calderon C Urzua U Munroe D et al. Survivin expression promotes VEGF-induced tumor angiogenesis via PI3K/Akt enhanced β-catenin/Tcf-Lef dependent transcription. Mol Cancer 2014; 13: 209.

  • 37. Ma ACH Lin R Chan PK Leung JC Chan LY Meng A et al. The role of survivin in angiogenesis during zebrafish embryonic development. BMC Dev Biol 2007; 7: 50.

  • 38. Ghaffarzadeh M Ghaedi H Alipoor B Omrani MD Kazerouni F Shanaki M Labbaf A Pashaiefar H Rahimipour A. Association of mir-149 (rs2292832) variant with the risk of coronary artery disease. J Med Biochem 2017; 36: 251–8.

  • 39. Santini D Abbate A Scarpa S Vasaturo F Biondi-Zoccai GG Bussani R et al. Surviving acute myocardial infarction: survivin expression in viable cardiomyocytes after infarction. J Clin Pathol 2004; 57: 1321–4.

  • 40. Ho YS Tsai WH Lin FC Huang WP Lin LC Wu SM et al. Cardioprotective actions of TGF RI inhibition through stimulating autocrine/paracrine of survivin and inhibiting Wnt in cardiac progenitors. Stem Cell 2015; 34(2): 445–55.

  • 41. Lee BS Kim SH Jin T Choi EY Oh J Park S et al. Protective effect of survivin in doxorubicin-induced cell death in H9c2 cardiac myocytes. Korean Circ J 2013; 43: 400–7.

  • 42. Lee PJH Rudenko D Kuliszewski MA Liao C Kabir MG Connelly KA et al Survivin gene therapy attenuates left ventricular systolic dysfunction in doxorubicin cardiomyopathy by reducing apoptosis and fibrosis. Cardiovasc Res 2014; 101(3): 423–33.

  • 43. Roshanov PS Walsh M Devereaux PJ MacNeil SD Lam NN Hildebrand AM et al. External validation of the Revised Cardiac Risk Index and update of its renal variable to predict 30-day risk of major cardiac complications after non-cardiac surgery: rationale and plan for analyses of the VISION study. BMJ Open 2017; 7(1): e013510.

  • 44. Duan L Hu X Jin Y Liu R You Q. Survivin protein expression is involved in the progression of non-small cell lung cancer in Asians: a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2016; 16: 276.

  • 45. Noton EA Colnaghi R Tate S Starck C Carvalho A Ko Ferrigno P et al. Molecular analysis of survivin isoforms: Evidence that alternatively spliced variants do not play a role in mitosis. J Biol Chem 2005; 281(2): 1286–95.

  • 46. Goričar K Kovac V Franko A Dodil-Fikfak M Dolčan V. Serum survivin levels and outcome fo chemotherapy in patients with malignant mesothelioma. Dis Markers 2015; Article ID 316739

  • 47. Jiang ZM Yao HR Zhan J Xie DR Li HG. Expression and significance of survivin in colon cancer. Ai Zheng 2004; 23(11 Suppl): 1414–7.

  • 48. Stanilov N Miteva L Mintchev N Stanilova S. High expression of Foxp3 IL-23p19 and survivin mRNA in colorectal carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24(2): 151–7.

  • 49. El-Attar HA Kandil MH El-Kerm YM El-Ghandour MK. Comparison of serum survivin and alpha fetoprotein in Egyptian patients with hepatocellular carcinoma associated with hepatitis C viral infection. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010; 11(4): 897–903.

  • 50. Krepela E Dankova P Moravcikova E Krepelova A Prochazka J Cermak J et al. Increased expression of inhibitor of apoptosis proteins surviving and XIAP in non-small cell lung carcinoma. International Journal of Oncology 2009; 35: 1449–62.

  • 51. Dellala FD Niyazoglub M Gorara S Ademoglua E Candana Z Bekdemira H et al. Serum surviving increases in prolactinoma. J Clin Med Res 2015; 7(4): 248–52.

  • 52. Dong H Qian D Wang Y Meng L Chen D Ji X et al. Survivin expression and serum levels in pancreatic cancer. World J Surg Oncol 2015; 13:189.

  • 53. Ren YQ Zhang HY Su T Wang XH Zhang L. Clinical significance of serum survivin in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2014; 18(20): 3063–8.

  • 54. Chen HA Su CM Hsieh HY Tung CL Hsu CD Wang YH et al. Clinical significance of survivin expression in patients with urothelial carcinoma. Dis Markers; 2014: 574985.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 2.000
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.075

CiteScore 2018: 1.47

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.523
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.581

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 492 270 7
PDF Downloads 224 125 3