Key result
Review outlines emerging blood biomarkers for predicting clinical outcomes and identifying high CV risk.
Why the study?
Extensive efforts have been made to develop biomarkers to help identify patients at increased risk for cardiovascular events to prevent severe complications.
This review summarizes current knowledge on emerging blood biomarkers that may help identify patients at increased risk for cardiovascular events.
Emerging biomarkers should not yet guide cardiovascular risk assessment; leaves open the need for prospective validation before clinical use.
Cardiovascular disease is most frequently caused by the development and progression of atherosclerosis. When coronary arteries are afflicted, and the stenoses caused by atherosclerotic plaques are severe enough, the metabolic supply-and-offer balance is disturbed, leading to myocardial ischemia. If atherosclerotic plaques become unstable and local thrombosis develops, a myocardial infarction occurs. Sometimes, myocardial ischemia and infarction may result in significant and irreversible heart failure. To prevent severe complications, such as acute coronary syndromes and ischemia-related heart failure, extensive efforts have been made for developing biomarkers that would help identify patients at increased risk for cardiovascular events. In this two-part study, we attempted to provide a review of existing knowledge of blood biomarkers that may be used in this setting. The first part of this work was dedicated to conventional biomarkers, which are already used in clinical practice. In the second part, here presented, we discuss emerging biomarkers which have not yet become mainstream.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pál et al. (2023) conducted a review in Heart Disease. Emerging blood biomarkers was evaluated. This review discusses emerging blood biomarkers that have not yet become mainstream for predicting clinical outcomes and identifying patients at increased risk for cardiovascular events.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: