Why the study?
Biomarkers can aid in early detection and prediction of post-infarction ventricular remodeling, motivating a review of established markers and emerging candidates.
What is the role of established and novel biomarkers in predicting post-myocardial infarction ventricular remodeling?
What is the role of established and novel biomarkers in predicting post-myocardial infarction ventricular remodeling?
Biomarkers play a crucial role in the early detection and prediction of post-myocardial infarction ventricular remodeling, with established markers already in clinical use and novel markers showing promise.
Established biomarkers may aid post-MI monitoring; leaves open prospective validation of novel markers before clinical adoption.
Studies in recent years have shown increased interest in developing new methods of evaluation, but also in limiting post infarction ventricular remodeling, hoping to improve ventricular function and the further evolution of the patient. This is the point where biomarkers have proven effective in early detection of remodeling phenomena. There are six main processes that promote the remodeling and each of them has specific biomarkers that can be used in predicting the evolution (myocardial necrosis, neurohormonal activation, inflammatory reaction, hypertrophy and fibrosis, apoptosis, mixed processes). Some of the biomarkers such as creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB), troponin, and N-terminal-pro type B natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were so convincing that they immediately found their place in the post infarction patient evaluation protocol. Others that are related to more complex processes such as inflammatory biomarkers, atheroma plaque destabilization biomarkers, and microRNA are still being studied, but the results so far are promising. This article aims to review the markers used so far, but also the existing data on new markers that could be considered, taking into consideration the most important studies that have been conducted so far.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bostan et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: